RE: RE: [Nolug] NAS

P.S.

And if you are doing Raid in software, it's the least computationally intensive
since there is no ECC calculation. :-)

John

    John Souvestre - New Orleans LA

  _____

From: John Souvestre [mailto:johns@sstar.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:32 PM
To: 'nolug@nolug.org'
Subject: RE: RE: [Nolug] NAS

Hi Shane.

It depends on what you do most - read or write. It also depends on the size of
the data blocks you are reading. For small blocks the disk access time is
important and being able to get all of the data from just one drive access (Raid
1) is a big advantage. Indeed, with Raid 1 you can get all of the data from
either drive, thus allowing you to overlap reads.

John

    John Souvestre - New Orleans LA

  _____

From: owner-nolug@stoney.kellynet.org [mailto:owner-nolug@stoney.kellynet.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:28 PM
To: nolug@nolug.org
Subject: Re: RE: [Nolug] NAS

Huh? Isn't raid5 supposed to be faster than raid1? It uses striping.

On Apr 10, 2010 10:25 PM, "John Souvestre" <johns@sstar.com> wrote:

Hi Shane.

For small applications, consider Raid 1. It's cheaper, only two drives, even
though the cost per byte is higher. It's also faster than Raid 5.

John

    John Souvestre - New Orleans LA

  _____

From: owner-nolug@stoney.kellynet.org [mailto:owner-nolug@stoney.kellynet.org]
On Behalf Of Shane Russo
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 4:47 PM

To: nolug@nolug.org
Subject: 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> wrot...

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