On 10/7/19 9:03 am, Luca Lazzarin wrote:
On 10/07/19 00:47, Wols Lists wrote:
On 09/07/19 23:17, Luca Lazzarin wrote:
Hi all,
actually a server of mine has a 2x1TB Raid 1 array.
The disks are becoming old and to avoid possible problems I would like
to replace them.
Moving from 1TB of space to 2TB could be enough, but since I have to
buy
the new disks I am considering different possibilities, which are:
1) 2x2TB Raid 1 array;
2) 3x2TB Raid 1 array;
3) 3x1TB Raid 5 array;
4) 3x2TB Raid 5 array (I know, this will give me 4TB of space, which
probably are enough for the next 10 year);
5) 4x1TB Raid 6 array.
Which one, in your opinion, would the the best solution?
What's the price difference between 1TB and 2TB drives? Significant, or
not much? If the price difference isn't that much I'd go for the larger
drives every time.
1TB costs 60 euro, 2TB costs 75 euro (WD Red), so the difference is
not significant to me.
I think there are three options that "make sense" to consider:
1) 2x2TB Raid 1 array; 120 euro
2) 3x2TB Raid 1 array; 225 euro
3) 3x1TB Raid 5 array; 180 euro
4) 3x2TB Raid 5 array (I know, this will give me 4TB of space, which
probably are enough for the next 10 year); 225 euro
5) 4x1TB Raid 6 array. 240 euro
If cost is important, then I would suggest 2 x 2TB in RAID1, but if not,
then I would choose 3 x 2TB in RAID1, this is IMHO, safer than option 4
(2 complete disk failures without data loss), cheaper than option 4.
Is speed important? raid 1 is probably best. I wouldn't run raid 1 over
three disks - if you're thinking of that you're probably better off with
raid 10.
If you want more definite answers than this, though, you're going to
have to provide more information about how the server is used - is it
home or business, is speed or resilience more important, what do you
actually want from the array? Each version has pros and cons.
The server is a business file server where my colleagues save their
data and access the from their laptops.
Speed is not so much important, I prefer resilience, so the most
important thing I would from the array is to prevent as much as
possible data corruption and have a safe place where data is stored.
Cheers,
Wol
I'm not sure why I disagree with you Wol... why is RAID10 so much better
than a 3 disk RAID1? Linux MD you can use 3 disk RAID10 with 2 mirrors,
but I don't think that is what you are suggesting, it would bring
capacity up to 3TB but you can only lose one drive (same as the RAID5
option).
IMHO, if data resilience is your primary concern, than RAID1 x 3 drives,
or potentially RAID10 x 3 drives with 3 mirrors if there is some
technical implementation / performance difference I'm not aware of with
these two options.
Regards,
Adam
--
Adam Goryachev Website Managers www.websitemanagers.com.au
--
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance
on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message
in error, please notify us immediately. Please also destroy and delete the
message from your computer. Viruses - Any loss/damage incurred by receiving
this email is not the sender's responsibility.
