Les Mikesell wrote:
> But note that drive capacity has gone up too, often eliminating the need
> for many-disk arrays. For example, you can go up to 2TB on a single
> drive, so a simple RAID1 mirror may be all you need, and if you can
> arrange the mount points to match the use pattern you may get better
> performance out of several separate raid1 partitions where the heads can
> seek independently instead of essentially tying them all together in a
> single array. A many-disk array may do better on artificial benchmarks
> accessing one big file, but that's not what most computers actually do -
> and raid1 has the advantages of not slowing down when a member fails and
> you can recover the data from any single drive.
My storage array does that sort-of to the extreme, per drive there
are hundreds of mini RAID arrays which help stripe the load better,
distributes parity better(no dedicated parity disks), and rebuild
from failures faster(750GB disk can be rebuilt in 3 hours with no
impact to system performance).
Just ran a calculation on the number and there are 80,007 mini
raid arrays(composed of 256MB logical disks) on my system with 200
750GB drives, so about 400 raid arrays per disk on average.
makes me a happy camper
nate
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
