Re: Hosting again

Peter Corlett wrote:
> 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.

Errm, they do completely different things. "I've
decided that, given
your budget, dreadlocks is the way to do. Were you able to
spend more, I
recommend liposuction".


-- 

  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 21:55, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
[...]
> Errm, they do completely different things. "I've
decided that, given
> your budget, dreadlocks is the way to do. Were you able
to spend  
> more, I
> recommend liposuction".

I'm not denying that they are different, but for toy
servers, RAID1  
is an easy choice. It satisfies the KISS principle, that it
requires  
just two disks means you can get away without any add-in
cards on  
your typical cheap x86 box, and it has reasonable
performance  
characteristics that are no worse than a single disk
solution.

RAID5 or RAID6 is a harder choice to justify. You need more
spindles,  
possibly an actual hardware RAID controller instead of Linux
md, and  
the performance on some workloads is going to suck. Plus
it's  
probably not going to fit in a 1U case any more unless you
buy a  
really expensive server and/or case.

(And in cases where I'd consider RAID5 or RAID6, Solaris ZFS
and  
RAIDZ is now strongly tempting instead.)