good point. It's a server. No large databases, lot of processing though. On 8/4/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the application? > > Web, DB, Mail some combination? > > How much space is it going to need? > > Basically with RAID 10 you double the number of drives you need than > with RAID 5. If you are dealing with only 4 drives, then I'd still go > with RAID 5. However if you are talking 8+ then go with RAID 10. > > Are you going to use internal disks or SCSI attached disks. > > Don't forget about heat. The more drives you have the hotter it gets, > which WILL cause problems if they are not properly cooled. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 11:57 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: RAID Help > > > > cost is a little bit important but not as much as throughput. > > > > Thanks > > > > On 8/4/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Well, there are other things to take into account. > > > > > > Like the controller, and what you are doing. The generic text book > > > answer is if there is not cost constraint go with 10. However that > is > > > dealing with internal or direct attach SCSI systems. Realistically > there > > > are channel constraints, and controller issues that also affect the > > > speed. > > > > > > For instance, say you have 6 disks attached to one controller, 3 on > one > > > channel and 3 on the other. RAID 5 would provide good speed and more > > > space because the load is being distributed. > > > > > > Even better, say you have two controllers and 6 disks, and your > > > controllers could communicate, and you take all 6 disks and put them > in > > > one RAID 5 array, then you are doing very good. At that point I'd > say > > > you'd get the best of both worlds. Add in good caching and you can > do > > > very good. Of course if cost is no object, get 12 disks, and do RAID > 10. > > > > > > Here we don't use internal disks for anything that is IO intensive, > also > > > we do a lot of clustering for big stuff. We have a SAN setup using > fiber > > > channel to connect to the individual servers, using high quality > fiber > > > attached SCSI drives. I can go into more detail if you want, but > > > basically, I have an application that runs on 4 web servers, > connecting > > > to a back end MSSQL cluster. The app serves some 50 page views a > second, > > > with each page view averaging 20-30 queries, and the disk queue > length > > > on the SQL Server maintains at zero. > > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:212647 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
