If you’re paying per U of rack space for colocation then maximizing the storage density is going to be a bigger priority than ease of maintenance, especially since there should be multiple layers of redundancy involved here.
you still have to replace failed drives, this design is poor.
I work in a datacenter that has many drive arrays, my main storage space direct array has 900TB with redundancy. I have been pulling old arrays out and even some of the older ones are better then this if they have front loading drives cages.
there is no airflow gaps in that thing… I bet the heat it generates is massive
If you’re paying per U of rack space for colocation then maximizing the storage density is going to be a bigger priority than ease of maintenance, especially since there should be multiple layers of redundancy involved here.
you still have to replace failed drives, this design is poor.
I work in a datacenter that has many drive arrays, my main storage space direct array has 900TB with redundancy. I have been pulling old arrays out and even some of the older ones are better then this if they have front loading drives cages.
there is no airflow gaps in that thing… I bet the heat it generates is massive
They probably wait for like 20%of the drives in an array to fail before taking it offline and swapping them all out.
Also, this doesn’t sound like the architects problem, sounds like the techs problem 🤷
I work in a datacenter as the system admin and waiting after one drive fails for a second to fail is asking for disaster