Re: [Nolug] NAS

Yeah, and those smaller drives will cost 3x more than a 2TB SATA
drive. It's insane, but after you work with servers long enough, you
realize that the SAS and SCSI hard drives have a much higher build
quality than the desktop models. It's insane when you set up a server
with RAID5, leave it running 24/7 for 6 years straight, and you might
have one hard drive failure. I love their reliability.

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
>
> The one "bad" thing about high-capacity drives is, well, their high
> capacity.
>
> Back In The Day, you'd create a 1TB RAID-10 set out of 14 SCSI-320 146GB
> drives and 4 or 5 SCSI cards.  The parallelism made for very high IO rates,
> but at the cost of a shelf or two, 2 or 4 PSUs, a handful of BBC SCSI cards,
> cables, etc, etc, ad nauseum.  Serious coin!  More if your existing racks
> are already full and you thus need to also buy a new rack, fans, shelves,
> blah blah.  REALLY Serious Coin, especially if the corporation mandates Tier
> 1 vendors.
>
> Even now, for "Enterprise" production (as opposed to archival) work, I'd
> spec 320GB or 146GB 6Gbps 15K SAS drives, depending on how much speed is
> needed.
>
> On 2010-04-10 14:45, John Souvestre wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ron.
>>
>> Right.  I believe that Raid 10 beats Raid 5 in all of the specs.  I
>> certainly
>> prefer it.
>>
>> The only possible down side is that you need an even number of drives.  So
>> where
>> a 3 drive Raid 5 might be large enough, you would need a 4th drive to go
>> with
>> Raid 10.
>>
>> I also echo the comments about not trusting software Raid.  I had the
>> FreeBSD
>> version fail on two different boxes in the past.  On the other hand, I've
>> had
>> drive in my Cobalt RaQ fail twice and the OS handled the situation like a
>> dream.
>>
>> John
>>
>>    John Souvestre - New Orleans LA
>>
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: owner-nolug@stoney.kellynet.org [mailto:owner-
>>  > nolug@stoney.kellynet.org] On Behalf Of Ron Johnson
>>  > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:39 PM
>>  > To: nolug@nolug.org
>>  > Subject: Re: [Nolug] NAS
>>  >  >  > RAID5 best of both worlds??  That *highly* debatable, since it's
>>  > write performance stinks.  You need scads of BBC to make it effective.
>>  >  > On 2010-04-10 14:14, Chris Jones wrote:
>>  > > Well, there's no such thing as raid10 with 2 drives.  You need at
>> least
>>  > > 4 drives for raid10.  With 2 drives it would be raid1.  Or raid0, but
>>  > > only a fool would put important data on a raid0.  ;)  raid0 is best
>> for
>>  > > use as a temporary place for data processing.  Raid5 is the best of
>> both
>>  > > worlds, and is the most cost effective.
>>  > >
>>  > >> On Apr 10, 2010 1:41 PM, "Joey Kelly" <joey@joeykelly.net
>>  > >> <mailto:joey@joeykelly.net>> wrote:
>>  > >>
>>  > >> On Sat April 10 2010 1:29 pm, Petri Laihonen wrote:
>>  > >>
>>  > >> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Joey Kelly <joey@joeykelly.net
>>  > >> <mailto:joey@joeykelly.net>> wrote:
>>  > >> > > On Sat April 10 2010 1...
>>  > >>
>>  > >> OK, let me be less cryptic.
>>  > >>
>>  > >> RAID5 with 3 drives, or RAID10 with two... fine, lose one drive,
>>  > >> you're still
>>  > >> OK. Forget I even said anything.
>>  > >>
>>  > >> BUT... I do have to step in and complain loudly about software RAID.
>>  > >> If you
>>  > >> don't care about your data, feel free to set up software RAID.
>>  > >>
>>  > >> The same thing goes for Fake RAID. If you like your data and want to
>>  > >> keep it,
>>  > >> get a real controller.
>>  >
>
> --
> Dissent is patriotic, remember?
> ___________________
> Nolug mailing list
> nolug@nolug.org
>

-- 
Chris Jones
http://www.doomsdaytechnologies.com
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org