On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Alex Wood wrote: > 1) Wasn't about server down time but about lost data, as in for good. > Can you afford to even lose a bit of the data permanently? Can the > server completely die and all data be lost and not cause you to lose > any sleep (or whoever the stored data effects). Well, of course, I would rather it be very reliable, but losing the data will not have any super bad negative effects. I want them backed up anyhow. > 3) Storage was meant to mean where the server(s) will physically be house= d. In the university server room most likely. Need to discus this with the dean, etc. > 4) What about unplanned down time? I have had servers running critical > databases go down for 1-5 days due to a predecessors lack of > appreciation for testing setups and considering backup equipment. That's fine. I'm not too worried about downtime. Only my service will rely on this server (no other university services will rely on it), so a few hours a day of downtime even isn't going to kill anyone. But I'm sure that amount of downtime is not going to happen. >> How about RAID 5 with hot standby? > > I have only used RAID 1 before but a quick read up makes me think that > read/write times are going to be very slow, especially with the amount > of disks you need. Really? RAID 5/6 is slow? Isn't it faster than a large single disks? I'd imagine it actually is pretty fast. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .