Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:35 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Or just acquire two 2TB drives an mirror them. 20x 250GB drives in
RAID10 is 2.5TB net space. Surely you don't currently have 20 drives in
this RAID array. If you're acquiring 250GB drives in 2013 I'd guess
you're not after performance. So reducing spindle count shouldn't be an
issue, should it?
Actually the only reason to use small drives any more is for
performance, fast drives (10k+ rpm) tend to be small. And expensive.
The WD Velociraptor 250 SATA is the only 250GB drive ever sold with a
10K+ spindle. All others are SAS, and are 73, 146, 300, 450, 600,
900GB. If he has 250GB Raptors and needs the random IOPS performance,
then it makes sense to maintain the RAID10 array. If not and he simply
needs capacity...
Brings back memories, we played with 73G drives in a RAID10 f3 configuration.
Big, loud, expensive, etc. And HOT!
Those were the days. Late 90's or just after Y2k. All IBM rack mount stuff.
I agree that this user probably isn't doing that.
I see Newegg has decent TB drives for $59 now, not server grade, but
decent stuff.
then the larger mirror pair makes more sense.
Can't disagree.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination. -me, 2010
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
