Server and raid setup - Page 3

Zirax · 17-09-2007, 11:19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels

If i'm reading this right then you've just described raid 0+1.

Mark · 17-09-2007, 11:23

It does look that way, but then I'd make that mistake too. I always mix up 0+1 and 10.

Daz · 17-09-2007, 11:25

The capacity is the same in either scenario, and with 4 disks, there's no difference really.

Besides, all but the highest end cards wont tell you if it's RAID10 is to the letter or actually 0+1 that it's using. In most cases, RAID10 on low-mid range cards is a mirror of stripes, ime. Particularly if that card only has 4 ports.

Zirax · 17-09-2007, 11:30

Ok cracking thanks all

Garp · 17-09-2007, 13:01

We use 10 a bit here, depends on the function of the server and whether the demand is on data security or IOPs. RAID5 for your purposes would be more logical on the server. I'd echo the comments about not having one big RAID0 array.. the risks are a little large

Personally I'd be looking at putting *nix, Ubuntu Server or similar, and use Exim as a mail server on the server, rather than windows, but thats just my prejudices showing

Zirax · 17-09-2007, 20:56

I'd be tempted by using Linux again, but the chances of me getting a mail server secure are slim. Last time I delved into Linux was with Suse 9.0 back in 2005

Agreed, raid 5 on the server as I want the redundancy. I was thinking of raid 0 on the main machine purely for speed. Which again I think raid 10 for the main pc is better.

17-09-2007, 11:25	#23
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	The capacity is the same in either scenario, and with 4 disks, there's no difference really. Besides, all but the highest end cards wont tell you if it's RAID10 is to the letter or actually 0+1 that it's using. In most cases, RAID10 on low-mid range cards is a mirror of stripes, ime. Particularly if that card only has 4 ports. __________________ apt-get moo

17-09-2007, 13:01	#25
Garp Preparing more tumbleweed Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,038	We use 10 a bit here, depends on the function of the server and whether the demand is on data security or IOPs. RAID5 for your purposes would be more logical on the server. I'd echo the comments about not having one big RAID0 array.. the risks are a little large Personally I'd be looking at putting nix, Ubuntu Server or similar, and use Exim as a mail server on the server, rather than windows, but thats just my prejudices showing __________________ Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash*: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"?

17-09-2007, 11:19	#21
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels If i'm reading this right then you've just described raid 0+1.

17-09-2007, 11:23	#22
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	It does look that way, but then I'd make that mistake too. I always mix up 0+1 and 10.

17-09-2007, 11:30	#24
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	Ok cracking thanks all

17-09-2007, 20:56	#26
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	I'd be tempted by using Linux again, but the chances of me getting a mail server secure are slim. Last time I delved into Linux was with Suse 9.0 back in 2005 Agreed, raid 5 on the server as I want the redundancy. I was thinking of raid 0 on the main machine purely for speed. Which again I think raid 10 for the main pc is better.