fighting the lack of good ideas

storage strategies – part 1

In follow-up to my previous article about bind mounts, here is the first in a series on storage strategies (while everything contained in this series is applicable to desktops and laptops, the main thrust will be towards servers). Today we’ll look at local/simple storage options (DAS – both the spinning and solid-state varieties).

The most basic form of utilizable storage is the direct-attached (or DAS) variety. In short, DAS covers any drives that are physically connected to a computer – hard drives, SSDs, etc.

Spinning disks, aka hard drives, are the most common form of DAS – and are extremely similar between consumer and professional levels (the only main differences are price* and guaranteed reliability): they’re a very mature, stable technology, and, excepting recent problems in Thailand, have been pretty cheap for a long time.

Depending on the server, there will be anywhere from 2-12 (or more) disk slots. If the disks are sized equally, they can be either added to a RAID (a topic for a future post on fault-tolerance), or used individually.

A more recent alternative to hard drives have been solid-state storage. SSDs use flash memory – which can be more fault-tolerant than disk drives because there are no moving parts. While, as with all devices, there is a failure rate with flash storage, it [generally] fails more gracefully than a spinning disk, as individual cells of the flash will wear-out/become inaccessible, rather than a platter  physically crashing.


  • “traditional” storage, which makes installation simple
  • storage performance can be easily isolated
  • generally-speaking, it’s the fastest storage option
  • cheapest storage option


  • if storage needs have been predicted too low, it can be costly and time-consuming to increase
  • if storage needs have been predicted too high, a server could be “wasting” lots of space
  • when failures happen, recovery can be a very time-consuming process

*There is an excellent question and answer on Server Fault that covers why costs of enterprise/professional storage are high, and I won’t rehash much of that information in this series.

professional lying – or is it laziness?

I have noticed an unusual percentage of professional CVs/work histories/resumes on LinkedIn (specifically) that have some fairly blatant errors in them.

For example, I have seen people list multiple full-time jobs that they could not have had at the same time (eg, both at one employer and also at the company that acquired their old employer).

I’ve also seen people claim to have accomplished things or be in a role that is either flat-out wrong, or worded in a weaselly way that looks like they’ve accomplished a lot more than they really did (eg showing only their current title at their current employer, but listing the start date as their initial hire date, and only listing their current accomplishments/roles (or listing all of them, but implying they did something that other individuals were actually responsible for)).

I’ve also seen LinkedIn profiles that are spartanly-populated – which is cool, that kinda follows my personal philosophy of never putting anything on my resume I don’t want to be asked about. But the ones that are full of – at the very least – questionable entries on their work history seem very troubling to me.