Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Jason Lim" <email@example.com>
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
> 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
> > 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
> > (or RAID10), but after thinking a bit more, perhaps RAID5 with 3 disks
> > spare would be even better?
> > With the RAID10 solution 2 disks could die (but there is still the
> > 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