http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/12/enterprise-computing-slot-cost/ Storage, Virtualisation & Cloud Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:47:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/12/enterprise-computing-slot-cost/#comment-771 Chris Evans Wed, 13 May 2009 07:29:24 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=545#comment-771 The 7000 is interesting because there's no reliance on fast drives, so the array can be easily converted to 2.5" if the GB/cm3 density works. The 7000 is interesting because there’s no reliance on fast drives, so the array can be easily converted to 2.5″ if the GB/cm3 density works.

]]> http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/12/enterprise-computing-slot-cost/#comment-770 Dale Clutterbuck Wed, 13 May 2009 00:58:40 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=545#comment-770 Top loading arrays (e.g. Sun Thumper and 7210) make for interestingly low slot cost (though only applicable to SATA drives in most cases). With the comment on 2.5" drives, I wonder if there will be a top loading 2.5" equivalent on the way? It could make for some extreme density! Top loading arrays (e.g. Sun Thumper and 7210) make for interestingly low slot cost (though only applicable to SATA drives in most cases). With the comment on 2.5″ drives, I wonder if there will be a top loading 2.5″ equivalent on the way? It could make for some extreme density!

]]> http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/12/enterprise-computing-slot-cost/#comment-773 Chris Evans Tue, 12 May 2009 20:48:16 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=545#comment-773 Pete, that's a good point and slightly preempts a post I was about to put up! Clearly at the moment, everything is based around the 3.5" format, except for a few arrays out there using 2.5" (most notably for me the Sun USS 7110 Array). As 2.5" drives become more widely adopted, then we'll have to consider power/cooling/space/weight as part of the equation and I actually do calculate those metrics too when considering KPIs for arrays. It's amazing looking at the differences between monolithic/enterprise and modular for this! Bring on 2.5" drives, I say. Pete, that’s a good point and slightly preempts a post I was about to put up! Clearly at the moment, everything is based around the 3.5″ format, except for a few arrays out there using 2.5″ (most notably for me the Sun USS 7110 Array). As 2.5″ drives become more widely adopted, then we’ll have to consider power/cooling/space/weight as part of the equation and I actually do calculate those metrics too when considering KPIs for arrays. It’s amazing looking at the differences between monolithic/enterprise and modular for this! Bring on 2.5″ drives, I say.

]]> http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/12/enterprise-computing-slot-cost/#comment-772 Pete Steege Tue, 12 May 2009 19:08:29 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=545#comment-772 Great metric Chris. As 2.5" drives enter storage, it will be interesting to watch how the definition of "good" slot cost evolves. Thoughts? Great metric Chris. As 2.5″ drives enter storage, it will be interesting to watch how the definition of “good” slot cost evolves. Thoughts?

]]>