At my work we use an internet-based charting system where everything we chart on (progress logs, case notes, session logs, treatment plans, etc) are stored online at a site in Austin Texas. It's normally pretty handy for us and we have used it for 6+ years now. <br><br>Well, yesterday everyone here had trouble accessing their system. An email from the company said:<br>"Technically, one of the disk drives on our production server became inconsistent with the array it was in. It had to be reset and takes time to rebuild. The rebuild will impact the server performance; our best guess is it will take the entire day to rebuild. There are 3 arrays on the server, with a total of 11 drives. The drive that had problems was less than a year old, having been purchased with a Dell server, and had not shown any issues previously. We regularly inspect our equipment, and replace older equipment well before the end of its expected lifecycle."<br><br><br>So, a single hard drive problem crashes their whole program and it's not just us it's affecting but every single customer that they have. <br><br>Is this standard practice with other companies that are internet-based? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a redundant array so that if a HD goes bad, you just switch things to the other one (not the backup one) and go on while you have the bad HD rebuild?<br><br>Oh, and it's STILL down after a full day of rebuilding the drive, it's only at 77% completion as of right now.<br><br>It's a good thing that the State hasn't come in to do an investigation or inspection!<br><br><br><br>my photos
The response I got back from their Accounts manager said this:<br><br>We have built in multiple points of redundancy to control for exactly this kind of occurrence – the drive that caused the problem didn’t fail, and it is in a multiple RAID set-up. How this drive, one of 11, causes this system-wide impact is not clear to me yet.<br><br><br>The IT people (whom I have met) seem to just ignore my questions. Heh. The CEO of the company is a mac guy, so perhaps now they'll move on to something better. <br><br><br><br>my photos
"The IT people (whom I have met) seem to just ignore my questions."<br><br>... 'cause they don't have answers. They belong to the 90%+ of IT techs who never got past their first certificate of achievement from Microsoft. $600 and a couple hours of studying and you too can be a Microsoft Certified IT tech... without answers. <br><br>But stick with Macs. You'll live longer and better! <br><br>- alec -
Loc: Hampstead, MD, USA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I wonder if they used X-Serves since the drives are hot swappable , would that have solved their problem ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>In my experience with XServes they'd have had the slowdown long ago :P<br><br>But to answer your question, no. Although the data would still be there, so would be performance hit while the RAID rebuilds. Sounds like they're not implementing the redundant arrays correctly.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.