> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote: > > > 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. > > again, it really depends on your monetary capabilities, and how much > storage you want in the end of everything. Raid5 + backup is a relatively > safe bet, 'cus the likelyhood of more than one disk going out at the same > time is pretty low.
Disk space is not a major consideration: this is not a fileserver. It is a webserver, so we're looking at more sporadic random small file reads. I know its not likely to happen (that is, that more than 1 disk dies at a time), but I want to get the server pretty much "remote controlled" even in the event of disaster. > with Raid10, and 4 40 gig disks, you end up with 80GB and an increase in > disk i/o - which, depending on how you're serving files off of these > disks may not really be a benefit (NFS for example), RAID5 gives you 120 > GB, and assuming your location is relatively well montitored (remotely, or > locally), you're gonna be ok barring anything catasrophic. Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs. On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also 80Gs, with 1 spare HD for rebuilding. The question becomes... which provides more performance and is more reliable? > Let us know what you go with, as I'm pondering the benefits of all this > myself... > Certainly. I have been reporting my experiments and results of my various RAID tests here. I gain knowledge and give it back as best as i can (although it is limited, i am learning :-) ).
