On 7/30/2019 12:12 PM, Kaminski, Adi wrote:
Indeed RAID10 with both mirroring and striping should satisfy the need, but per some benchmarks in the network there is still an impact on write performance on it compared to RAID0 which is considered as much better (attaching a table that summarizes different RAID levels and their pros/cons and capacity ratio).
RAID10 offers the best combination of performance and reliability. RAID0 might beat it *slightly* on performance, but if ANY drive fails on RAID0, the entire volume is lost.
If we have ~200-320 shards spread by our 7 Solr node servers (part of SolrCloud cluster) on single core/collection configured with replication factor 2, shouldn't it supply applicative level redundancy of indexed data ?
Yes, you could rely on Solr alone for data redundancy. But if there's a drive failure, do you REALLY want to be single-stranded for the time it takes to rebuild the entire server and copy data? That's what you would end up doing if you choose RAID0.
It is true that RAID1 or RAID10 means you have to buy double your usable capacity. I would argue that drives are cheap and will cost less than either downtime or sysadmin effort.
Thanks, Shawn
