http://www.bacula.org/en/ + http://www.drobo.com/
<http://www.drobo.com/>Woo!
Jerry Wilborn
jerrywilborn@gmail.com
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Shane Russo <russo.shane@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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