The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024

Latest message you have seen: Re: =?UTF-8?Q?=5Bukha=5Fd=5D=20Replacement=20for=20X=31=30=3F?=


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OT Raid Setup for MP3 Server



Okay am now sold on Raid5 solution, so back to the second part of my
original question is it possible to have the 4 hard disks in the
array and ONE SINGLE drive for the OS/Exchange etc (Mirroring the OS
is for me OTT).

Can someone recommend a suitable IDE Raid controller?, does anyone
offer a motherboard capable of doing Raid5? Preferably Socket370

Cheers

Paul

--- In ukha_d@y..., "gjggroupid" <register@r...> wrote:
> I work building servers everyday and the raid 5 vs raid 1 argument > comes up a lot.
>
> We use the following split when building servers.
>
> o/s =3D 2 x small drives (mirrored/raid 1).  Fast read + write > performance
> data ="3D" x drives in a raid 5 array. Faster reads than writes
> This can be done on the same controller easily.
>
> This makes it easier to restore the os & data separately
>
> This is obviously way ott for home use.  I would stick with Raid = 5,
> plain using the largest drives you can.

> In raid 5 the logical drive will be created using the smallest
drive
> size.  If you had 3 x 40GB (80GB logical drive) and added and 80G= B
> drive you will only get 40GB extra (120GB logical drive).
>
> Too enlarge all the disks, backup the data, re-create a radi 5
array
> with larger drives and restore it.  This is a lot easier if the O= /s
> is on a separate mirrored parition.
>
> In a =A320k compaq server the difference between 7200rpm and 15k rpm <= BR> is
> noticable.  In an PC architecture/IDE world, 5400rpm is fine IMO.=
>
> GarryG
>
> --- In ukha_d@y..., "Mark Harrison" <Mark.Harrison@e...&g= t; wrote:
> > Am I missing something here, or is there a good reason not to go =
> for a RAID 5 partition, which, has thre resilience benefits of 1+0, > but with less "disk wasted" overhead.... You'd get 360Gb of = usable
> storage instead of 240...


For more information: http://www= .automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.