Re: RAID suggestions?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> See, here's the thing. That I in RAID is for inexpensive. The idea is to
> increase reliability on the cheap. You could engineer an amazing HD with a
Err, the I is for inexpensive *DISKS* not an inexpensive ARRAY CONTROLLER
:-)
> be hideously expensive. Unless you are using RAID to improve I/O rather
> than for redundancy, putting expensive hardware into the equation defeats
> the purpose of a RAID in the first place.
If you need redundancy, you need some level of failure tolerance, AKA
resilience.
Inexpensive RAID controllers will not give you enhanced resilience at all,
they cause data-loss really easily. Some are so crappy, they completely
destroy the write-ordering and ignore any cache-flush barriers issued by the
O.S, and thus are much worse to your filesystem integrity than using a
single disk would be in a scenario where you don't have a full disk failure.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: