Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:32:27 -0700 From: "Brent Wiese" <brently@bjwcs.com> To: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Three Terabyte Message-ID: <020401c2f486$d6d280f0$0a0114ac@home.bjwcs.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030326231612.ah54@httpsite.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > On 27-Mar-2003, Francisco J Reyes wrote message "Re: Three=20 > Terabyte"=20 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Highly recommend you go with Raid 10 and not 5. >=20 >=20 > I 2nd that. Raid 5 offers very very POOR performance. While=20 > it sucks up the most diskspace, Raid 10 is maximum=20 > performance and great fault tolerance. For an i/o intensive=20 > service like a mail server or something, raid 5 will=20 > eventually cause your server to get crushed over time as the=20 > number of users increases. The you're forced to convert to=20 > raid 10. We learnt this the hard way. ;) >=20 Normally, I'd also agree with this. However, a friend of mine built a = NAS using the 3ware card and 11 200gb WD drives in a RAID5 config and can sustain 85mbit/s *write* (the test was several hours long). I suspect it would do even more with a gig-E card. Of course, that test would be fairly meaningless when you're doing = something like a mail spool, but it proves the application should drive the = method. Brent
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?020401c2f486$d6d280f0$0a0114ac>