Re: [Nolug] NAS

From: Shane Russo <russo.shane_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:05:48 -0500
Message-ID: <p2jf11a48921004102105y58fd476eu328dc7770143f935@mail.gmail.com>

I think my needs will be more reading. I plan on storing IISO of software
and pictures and some word docs and such. This is for in home use for
backups and organization. I have 2 1 TB drives that are quickly filling up
with DVD backups and home movies. Eventually I would like to build a second
box and have it replicated offsite somewhere. The problem comes in how do
you backuo 3-8 TB of data?

Thanks,

Shane Russo

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:

> On 2010-04-10 22:32, John Souvestre wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Note also that there are two kinds of orthogonal reads and writes: length
> (short, long) and "direction" (sequential and random).
>
> BITD (back in the day) RAID5 was faster than RAID1 in long sequential reads
> because of parallelism (lots of disks and lots of controllers) but RAID1 was
> faster at short reads and random short. (Random long doesn't really make
> sense.)
>
> Nowadays with capacities so enormous, it's hard to say what the performance
> of SATA drives would be.
>
> --
> Dissent is patriotic, remember?
>
> ___________________
> Nolug mailing list
> nolug@nolug.org
>

___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 04/11/10

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 04/11/10 EDT