On 1 Dec 2004, at 21:12, Lee Hosty wrote:
> I'm going through the motions of planning a largish network file
> server for personnel use here, and pondering on the reliability of
> disks. Is there any advantage in having disks mounted as read-only
> once they are crammed to capacity with data (write-once, read-often)?
> Will this prolong disk life? Or is it clutching at straws in the face
> of Some Other Solution(tm)? My main motivation behind this idea is
> that the data is for the most part replacable - I still have the DVDs
> and CDs that provide the data should a disk die (although I'd have to
> go through the ripping process all over again). Are they likely to
> have a longer / less troubled life if they are read-only? I guess the
> whole plan comes apart if theres a power-loss while disk reading is
> occurring (platters spinning and heads seeking)?
I wouldn't have thought so TBH. IDE disks have become as cheap as
chips, but seemingly less reliable. The answer to data availability is
redundancy, using RAID in some fairly reliable form e.g. 0+1 or 1+5 (or
should that be 5+1 ?). So you may end up having something more than
twice as many disks as the capacity you have but you are fairly well
insulated against drive failures - and your cost per GB is still less
than it was for raw drives 2 years ago - or even 1 year ago.
Niall
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
