Re: [Nolug] NAS

I have to agree. For a high availability enviroment server then yes raid 5
is way to slow. But for me just as a home file server raid 5 is way more
economical than getting 4 drives and 2/3 the capacity with a raid 10.

Thanks,

Shane Russo

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
>

___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 04/10/10