With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies. Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
Backups are done daily, but the data is sent to a central backup server, so it takes a while to pull the relevent data out in case of a restoration. So if at all possible that is to be avoided... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lev Lvovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 4:45 AM Subject: Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver > > I'd go with Raid5 personally... > > it really depends also on your monetary needs, and how often you do > backups. > > -lev > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Okay... for those of you following the previous RAID discussion... I > > bought the 3ware cards. > > > > Each server has 4 40G hard disks (identical). What RAID level/config do > > you suggest? > > Main usage is web/database/mail server (the usual hosting setup). Disk > > performance isn't THAT important, but reliability is. > > > > I was originally thinking setting up 2 RAID1 arrays... 2 disks + 2 disks > > (or RAID10), but after thinking a bit more, perhaps RAID5 with 3 disks + 1 > > spare would be even better? > > > > With the RAID10 solution 2 disks could die (but there is still the chance > > that the 2 disks holding the same information die), but with the RAID5 > > only 1 disk could die (but then the spare would kick in). > > > > Any suggestions, as usual, would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Sincerely, > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > -- > personal site :: www.sonous.com > rave site :: raves.sonous.com > I'm a DJ! site :: djkgb.sonous.com > > "You lefties are the Macs of the world" -Leon Simmonds > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
