I can vouch personally for RAID5 when you're using the CCISS cards with
battery backup write cache. The write performance issues go out the window.
It's a good balanace of speed, redundancy, cost. This is on a very high
volume mail server (6000+ clients).
Jerry Wilborn
jerrywilborn@gmail.com
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> For that, an lvm2 "array" (effectively RAID 0) backed up by an external
> drive or two (for example, a dual drive enclosure who's drives are their own
> lvm2 "array" is IMHO perfectly adequate.
>
>
> On 2010-04-10 16:47, Shane Russo wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> Dissent is patriotic, remember?
>
> ___________________
> Nolug mailing list
> nolug@nolug.org
>
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 04/10/10
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 04/10/10 EDT