[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [K12OSN] Raid Level Choice



Les Mikesell wrote:

On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 09:58, Liam Marshall wrote:



Question is, which way is better, 5 or 10? or does someone prefer something else



RAID5 causes a big hit on write speed and most systems are also very slow in degraded mode when you continue to run with a failed drive.

If you can afford to lose half your disk space (and with IDE/SATA
that's no longer a big expense), using RAID1 will give better
performance.  Then you need to consider the tradeoffs for mounting
each RAID1 device as a separate partition (pro: you can recover
data from a single drive - con: inflexible disk space layout), vs.
combining them in a fixed combination with RAID 0 + 1, vs. running
LVM to merge the space.  If I had a reasonable backup system working
so the disaster recovery scenario didn't matter, I'd lean toward
LVM over RAID1 pairs, especially if starting fresh with FC2/k12ltsp4.2
which defaults to LVM in the installer.

---
 Les Mikesell
   les futuresource com




and if I was considering raid for my disaster recovery option? I don't really have a back up option other that a script I use to copy files from the server onto my laptop's hard drive, then burning. This of course plays havoc with permissions etc. and is not a good solution, just a solution.

I don't have 6 drives, so 50 etc is out. But between 5 and 10 which provides better performance while still giving reasonable disaster recovery? In my environment, there is more reading than writing and I am teaching office applications which on the whole are small files, except for Presentation files

I just downloaded and burnt the iso for 4.2.0 rc1 (what does rc1 stand for?)

I have a SATA raid controller that will do hardware raid. Can you explain why I might want to use LVMs instead? I think that is what you are suggesting


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]