On 5/02/2013 8:12 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:27:42 +0000 Mathias Burén <mathias.buren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I read that the far layout gives faster read performance compared to standard RAID1 in a 2 HDD array, so that's why I used it. I then created yet another RAID10 f2 layout of the 3x 2 disk RAID10 volumes, giving me /dev/md124. Filesystem doesn't matter, I need something that's stable with good performance over the RAID set. I just realized that out of 12 TB raw space I now only have 3TB available, heh. So I suppose I'm going for a different layout. Any opinions?Hello, Why won't you even consider RAID6? To me it seems like the perfect choice, given the details you described (mostly reads, large files, few clients). And the disk count is perfect, not too few and not too many, so to say :D
I was going to say the same. I run a 4 x 2Tb SATA RAID6. The read speeds will *easily* saturate GigE. Random seeks slow things down quite a bit - but you'll get that with any setup except SSD.
If its mainly sequential reads, then RAID6 will be fine.And as I know someone will ask... Why 4 drives in RAID6? Firstly, you still get the redundancy of surviving 2 drive failures - but also when I start to run low on space I can easily add another 2Tb disk and reshape to 5 drives, then 6. My chassis has 8 x SATA hot swap bays - 2 x 80Gb RAID1 leaving the other 6 for the RAID6. By the time I fill up 6 x 2Tb drives, there will be other cheap multi-Tb drives to use.
-- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@xxxxxxxxx Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
