On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM, SilverTip257 <silvertip257@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Arch = x86_64
>> CentOS-6.4
>>
>> We have a cold server with 32Gb RAM and 8 x 3TB SATA drives mounted in
>> hotswap
>> cells. The intended purpose of this system is as an ERP application and
>> DBMS
>> host. The ERP application will likely eventually have web access but at
>> the
>> moment only dedicated client applications can connect to it.
>>
>> I am researching how to best set this system up for use as a production
>> host
>> employing RAID. I have read the (minimal) documentation respecting RAID on
>> the RedHat site and have found and read a few online guides. Naturally,
>> in my
>> ignorance I have a bunch of questions to ask and I probably have a bunch
>> more
>> that I should but do not know enough yet to ask.
>>
>
> Are you going to use hardware or software raid?
>
Butting in, I know people who would argue for either solution,
and that is not even calling the zfs crowd... ;)
>>
>> >From what I have read it appears that the system disk must use RAID 1 if
>> it
>> uses RAID at all. Is this the case? If so, is there any benefit to be
>> had by
>> taking two of the 8 drives (6Tb) solely to hold the OS and boot partition?
>> Should these two drives be pulled and replaced with two smaller ones or
>> should
>> we bother with RAID for the boot disk at all?
>>
Servers I have built usually have 2 40GB SSDs in raid1 for the
OS and then SSDs or spinny disks for the data itself in some raid
setup.
>> Given that one or two drive bays will be given over to the OS what should
>> be
>> the configuration of the remaining six? It appears from what I have read
>> that
>> RAID 5 is the only viable option. It also appears that the amount of
>> storage
>>
>
> What about RAID10?
>
> I've read that running a database server on raid5 isn't recommended, but
> raid1 or raid10 is recommended.
>
I do agree that for the amount of drives he has, raid10 seems to
be the way to go. That said, what about raid6?
>
>> available on a RAID5 array with N members is N-1/N. I also read that as the
>> number of members increase both latency and the risk of data loss
>> increases.
>> As the amount of disk space we have in this unit (24Tb) is greater than the
>> total storage of all our existing hosts it appears that a RAID5 array of 5
>> units would leave at least one hot spare in the chassis and two if the OS
>> is
>> put on one disk.
>>
>
> Space efficiency is less than that of raid5.
> Rather than 1-1/n with raid5 you have 2/n with raid10.
>
But it would be faster. And disks are cheap.
>
>>
>> Alternatively, the thought comes to mind that we could do a RAID1 with two
>> RAID5 arrays each of which have 3 drives. Whether one would actually want
>> to
>> do that seems to me a bit questionable but it seems to be at least
>> possible.
>>
>
> You're suggesting a raid5+1 or raid51
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels
>
> I wouldn't suggest nesting software raid if you can avoid it for the
> complexity.
> There are reasons to create a raid array with two hardware arrays, but I'd
> avoid doing so.
>
>
>>
>> Comments, suggestions, caveats?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
>> James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
>> 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
>> Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
>> Canada L8E 3C3
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---~~.~~---
> Mike
> // SilverTip257 //
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
