Re: Hosting again

Alistair McGlinchy wrote:
> [*] I removed the disks issue as RAID5 provides cost
effective resilience
> for a high MTBF component and with massive hassle
reduction when they fail.
>   
I've always used raid 10 or raid 1. In your experience
should I be using 
raid 5?


Lyle

Lyle - CosmicPerl.com wrote:
> I've always used raid 10 

There's no such thing.  Perhaps you mean RAID1+0?  In which
case, I hope 
you're doing that across at least 6 disks.

> In your experience should I be using raid 5?

Different RAID levels do different things.  RAID5 is great
if you want 
the things RAID5 gives you.  If you want what RAID1 gives
you then RAID5 
is no use.  Unless of course you decide to run RAID5 on top
of RAID1 or 
vice versa.......





-- 

 Martin A. Brooks |  http://www.antibodymx.net/
 | Anti-spam & anti-virus
    Consultant    |  martinantibodymx.net      |
filtering. Inoculate
  antibodymx.net  |  m: +447896578023           | your mail
system.

On 29 Oct 2007, at 19:40, Lyle - CosmicPerl.com wrote:
[...]
> I've always used raid 10 or raid 1. In your experience
should I be  
> using raid 5?

That depends on the exact requirements. RAID1 has better
write  
performance than RAID5, but RAID5 is cheaper per gig if you
need  
loads of storage.

I tend to spec out RAID1 as a no-brainer for anything under
about  
500GB, because that's actually cheaper than RAID5 for such a
small  
amount of space. Beyond that, it's more of an art than a
science  
deciding what to go for. Usually somebody else has already
made the  
decision for you though.