[THIN] Re: What is the optimal RAID configuration
- From: Jeff Rapp <JeffR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:54:20 -0400
I don't think Joe was saying that the valuable data is on your terminal
server, what about an application that runs on a different server? For
example, we run MAS200 which we have to perform an end of day update that
does a bunch of different things. MAS200 is on a different server but if the
client session suddenly went bye-bye in the middle of the update it would
cause serious corruption problems. So, valuable data need not be on your TS
server to be affected by something happening on the on your TS server.
And do I really want 25 to 30 users to loose their sessions in the middle of
creating a transaction or an important word document or spreadsheet just
because I didn't put an extra few hundred bucks in the server? I don't think
so
So in our case any fault-tolerance I can put in the better I am and the
better I sleep at night. So I am willing to pay the extra 400 to 600 bucks
to put an additional HD in my servers. Most new servers come with an array
controller so the cost is very minimal.
Farms are great, so is imaging, but they were not made to protect against
hardware faults. It comes down to each situation, in my case I have reasons
and prejudices that make me want to maintain RAID on my servers, others may
not.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hathaway [mailto:JimH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:32 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: What is the optimal RAID configuration
valuable data on a terminal server? surely that should never be the case.
blood, sweat, tears poured into creating your config, yes.
Besides, with imaging, your downed server is only down until your new drive
arrives. A load balanced farm does mitigate the risk of loosing any one to
two servers out of a farm due to hardware failure quite a bit.
To be fair, performance at Raid 0 on most drive systems these days is only
slightly better than Raid 1. Hardly noticeable to end users and perfmon.
Other related posts:
