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
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 mu
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> 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 ser
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
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 muc
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> 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 serv
6 matches
Mail list logo
