×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Larry is correct on the RAID 10 configuration. We just found that to be a
confusing way to state it, as Rob first suggested, two separate RAID sets
seems to be the way to read it.
We went with the spinning drives over SSD because of cost. Our current
system uses about 300GB running at around 65% full, so we wanted a little
more room, there are some things we have not done because of disk space. Yes
we keep our systems for a very long time. The only reason we are getting a
new system now, is because come March, it will longer be eligible for
maintenance. The cost of a single SSD was twice the cost of all 10 spinning
drives, and as was mentioned, we understand that when these come off the
initial contract, they can be expensive to have a continued maintenance
contract on. We get that SSDs are faster, we have had little complaint
about the speed of our current system and the new one will 3x the CPW of the
current box.
Regards,
Jim Hawkins
Programmer Analyst
Interkal LLC
Kalamazoo, MI
date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:55:02 -0400
from: Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: RAID definition
Didn't they also just drop the terminology "read intensive" from
mainstream SSD's?
Rob Berendt
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
