On 8/31/2011 12:41 PM, Thomas Harold wrote:
On 8/30/2011 5:43 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
A little OT - but I've seen a few opinions voiced here by various admins
and I'd like to benefit.
RAID-10 is fine (note that the default mdadm RAID10 isn't actually
RAID10, but it works well enough). RAID-6 won't be faster (and will
probably be worse) although RAID-6 does do a bit better in a
double-drive failure over RAID-10. The only way to get more
performance out of (4) drives is to switch to 10k or 15k SAS (or SSDs).
[...]
(Take a look at /dev/disk/by-id, /dev/disk/by-uuid, etc. Export a copy
of that information on a daily/weekly basis off of the machine. In a
software RAID environment, it gives you better information about which
drive serial # failed rather then relying on lights.)
Our mail server is 3-way RAID1 (triple mirror) for the OS and mail
queue with a 5-disk RAID-10 (4+spare) for mail storage.
Given my extensive requirements - I haven't yet filled my existing 320GB
- size isn't a big deal. Am I actually deriving much benefit from
4-disk RAID10 using 160GB discs - vs a 2-4 disc 1TB RAID1 array?
--
Daniel
