Re: [Nolug] NAS

Yeah and you work at Cox. LOL Exchange clusters... We're lucky if
we can get our clients to even run Exchange, far too many are
perfectly happy with POP email from their ISP. But a single computer
running a standalone Exchange installation for a company of 25 or less
employees isn't going to need RAID10. We even have a few clients
running SBS, which puts far too many duties on one box, but people
like it cause it's cheap.

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list
account) <listbox@unix-boy.com> wrote:
> 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
>

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