On 4/10/2010 2:14 PM, 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.
>
It depends. We're having to purchase a SAN DAE that is capable of RAID
10 for a new project we are working on now. The problem we had with
RAID 5 was that we have so much concurrent IO on both the read AND write
side, RAID 5 was THE bottle neck. After talking to the vendors, the
all recommended RAID 10.
For ordinary data, like your file server that Joe and Jane are using to
store their documents and photos, yeah RAID 5 is ok. If you are
running a large Exchange cluster (yes, I know, Linux list, but I run it
all), RAID 5 can cause issues. Desktop and server virtualization do
so-so on RAID 5, but the recommendations I'm starting to see are for
RAID 10 in those setups.
However, I think in context of this topic, RAID 5 would probably suit
the original poster just fine. I doubt he has 50-100 instances of a VM
hitting his storage device.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 04/10/10
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 04/10/10 EDT