(OT) archiving as opposed to backing up

[Patrick/VCM SysOp]

>  patrick> Funny you should say that Sellam.  I've been 
> thinking a bit  patrick> about their business model since the 
> topic came up.  If  patrick> they're using RAID 0+1 (adequate 
> and cheaper than RAID 5 for  patrick> this application), and 
> assuming they use "street" 73GB SCSI  patrick> hard drives, 
> then, ignoring the processor the drives are  patrick> 
> connected to, it would cost them over $400 for 73GB worth of  
> patrick> drives (a pair for 0+1, SCA), ...
> 
> Not to detract from your argument in this particular case, but...

Paul, I'm not really arguing a position, just puzzling over how they make it
possible to make enough money to be in business for as long as they've been.

> RAID 5 is cheaper than RAID 1, because a larger fraction of 
> the disk capacity is useful capacity.

I stand corrected!  That's absolutely right.  

> Also, if you want capacity, you should be looking at (S)ATA 
> disk based solutions, of which there are a bunch, not SCSI or 
> FC based.  SCSI and FC are the ultra high performance 
> technology point, not the high capacity point.

Indeed, and I guess I'm kind of stuck on "classic" SAN hardware, which is
generally SCSI and FC.  I think the really big SAN equipment is pretty much
all SCSI and FC, and I think for this application you need the economy of
scale that comes from a SAN with lots of drives and relatively few
processors, switches, and other supporting equipment.  Every time you have
to add that non-storage stuff, you're just adding to cost of goods.  I've
seen small SATA SANs, but not big 42-unit rack type things yet.  Is anybody
making them yet?  Using them?

Patrick