Ditto, Don't know anything on RAID 10 with four disks, but I agree with the two-disk scenario.
s. ---- "I merely function as a channel that filters music through the chaos of noise" - Vangelis ________________________________ From: Thomas Harold <thomas-li...@nybeta.com> To: dovecot@dovecot.org Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011, 3:23 Subject: Re: [Dovecot] OT - small hd recommendation On 9/1/2011 12:48 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote: > > 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? > A pair of RAID-1 mirrors: - easy to deal with - you can attempt to manually balance load between the two arrays (storage on one pair, indexes and mail queue on other pair) - disks can be pulled and taken to another machine and read one by one - slightly harder to screw up (but both setups die if the wrong 2 disks fail) RAID-10 over 4 disks: - generally faster seeks - generally faster read/write speeds due to striping - generally the better choice for performance - a bit harder to bury the disks vs a pair of mirrors - lets you have a bigger partition - all the eggs in a single array If you're having performance problems on the existing RAID-10, your only real choices are to throw more spindles at it (move to a 6 or 8 disk RAID-10 w/ a hot-spare disk), throw faster spindles at it (10k/15k SAS), or move to SSD. So, if you think you can manually balance the needs of the system, you could try a pair of independent mirrors. But if you want less hassle, stick with the RAID-10. (And look into a tool like "atop" which can be run in the terminal and does a decent job of showing you whether the CPU/DISK is overly busy.)