Re: RAID Suggestion for webserver
> 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 :-) ).
Reply to: