Editing Talk:1737: Datacenter Scale
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | ||
+ | |||
While the comic is obviously exaggerating, there are situations where this could make a certain amount of sense. IF you can design a server so that most or all of the components reach end-of-life at about the same time, then if a hard drive fails on one server, every other component of that server is likely to fail soon as well. | While the comic is obviously exaggerating, there are situations where this could make a certain amount of sense. IF you can design a server so that most or all of the components reach end-of-life at about the same time, then if a hard drive fails on one server, every other component of that server is likely to fail soon as well. | ||
Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
At that point, there's no reason to pay a technician to spend several days removing and replacing half the individual components throughout that rack/room, when the other half are just going to fail in the next few months anyway. In theory, it might be economically more efficient just to scrap everything at once, bring in brand-new server replacements, and re-sync the needed data from a networked backup. | At that point, there's no reason to pay a technician to spend several days removing and replacing half the individual components throughout that rack/room, when the other half are just going to fail in the next few months anyway. In theory, it might be economically more efficient just to scrap everything at once, bring in brand-new server replacements, and re-sync the needed data from a networked backup. | ||
+ | : Or give the equipment to someone with a different time/ROI equation. I've seen a lot of time/expense burned on a transient failure that turned out to be a cheap data cable. A kid/disadvantaged would have time to tinker this out with a potentially significant payoff. | ||
in real life, it's very hard to build a server that will reliably degrade on schedule.... but with the right tradeoffs, and enough long-term performance data, it might eventually become possible to do so. | in real life, it's very hard to build a server that will reliably degrade on schedule.... but with the right tradeoffs, and enough long-term performance data, it might eventually become possible to do so. | ||
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.101|162.158.74.101]] 04:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.101|162.158.74.101]] 04:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | + | ||
The title text is referring to [http://multivax.com/last_question.html The Last Question by Isaac Asimov]. | The title text is referring to [http://multivax.com/last_question.html The Last Question by Isaac Asimov]. | ||
Line 27: | Line 29: | ||
::It's clearly not [[Science Girl]], because, as the linked page says "She became the first child to have its own character category. She is distinguished by being clearly a girl (compared to adults around her or her behavior)". You may create a page called "Datacenter Woman". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.139|108.162.221.139]] 14:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | ::It's clearly not [[Science Girl]], because, as the linked page says "She became the first child to have its own character category. She is distinguished by being clearly a girl (compared to adults around her or her behavior)". You may create a page called "Datacenter Woman". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.139|108.162.221.139]] 14:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | + | == No need to invoke blade servers == | |
− | |||
− | |||
There's no need to refer to blade servers in the explanation. You can fit many "normal" servers into a 19 inch rack. It could just say: | There's no need to refer to blade servers in the explanation. You can fit many "normal" servers into a 19 inch rack. It could just say: | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | [[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | + | == RAID is not complicated == | |
Simple RAID 1 is not complicated to configure, unless you have some exotic HW RAID controllers. RAID 5 would be more complicated AND requires to be HW, but RAID 1 will usually be simple as HW OR possible to do SW completely automatically. What is costly is to replace discs as they fail, because it must be done by human ; in bigger systems, it makes more sense to start with RAID 1, then when one disc fail simply ignore it - not repair nor throw it off, just let it operate without the RAID. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | Simple RAID 1 is not complicated to configure, unless you have some exotic HW RAID controllers. RAID 5 would be more complicated AND requires to be HW, but RAID 1 will usually be simple as HW OR possible to do SW completely automatically. What is costly is to replace discs as they fail, because it must be done by human ; in bigger systems, it makes more sense to start with RAID 1, then when one disc fail simply ignore it - not repair nor throw it off, just let it operate without the RAID. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
:: Actually, depending on OS and software other RAID levels can be done in software, too. I've done RAID levels 5 and 6 fully in software using mdraid on Linux. Neither of them are really that much more complicated than RAID-1. ZFS can do even more complicated "RAID" types fully in software, too. [[User:Iguanabob|Iguanabob]] ([[User talk:Iguanabob|talk]]) 16:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | :: Actually, depending on OS and software other RAID levels can be done in software, too. I've done RAID levels 5 and 6 fully in software using mdraid on Linux. Neither of them are really that much more complicated than RAID-1. ZFS can do even more complicated "RAID" types fully in software, too. [[User:Iguanabob|Iguanabob]] ([[User talk:Iguanabob|talk]]) 16:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |