When Risk Management And Storage Collide

What would appeal to you more: redundant storage controllers or replicated storage?

Last week Synology launched its new RC18015XS+ server storage platform. In high availability scenarios, rather than requiring a full replica of both the storage and the controller, the platform allows multiple redundant controllers to access the same shared pool of storage. If the "active" controller has an issue, the "passive" controller takes over.

There's an obvious benefit in cost terms: not having to set up a replica storage pool means you don't have to duplicate all that disk space and associated hardware. The trade-off is that you'll have a potential single point of failure: if there's a catastrophic event with your storage pool (such as lack of power, rather than just an individual drive failure), then neither controller will be able to do anything useful.

Experience suggests that may not be a make-or-break issue, however. High availability is important, but in most cases it's the controller and the network that matters," Steven Gordon, technical solutions administrator for The Digital Foundry, told Lifehacker at the launch.


Comments

    Given this is how most enterprise storage arrays function, and have functioned, for decades, they might just be on to something !

      haha

      Synology are making a push into the enterprise, they have the performance and reliability already it's just the redundant solutions they lack. It's the only direction they can go now. Currently this is only available with 3.5" JBOD arrays. Once they get 2.5" JBOD's I'd like to see SAS SSD performance.

Join the discussion!