On 1/7/2010 12:28 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
I also heard that disks above 1TB might have reliability issues.
Maybe it changed since then...
I remember rumors about the early 2TB Seagates.
Personally, I won't RAID SATA drives over 500GB unless they're
enterprise-level ones with the limits
From: Thomas Harold thomas-li...@nybeta.com
Yah, RAID-5 is a bad idea anymore with the large drive sizes. RAID-6 or
RAID-10 is a far better choice.
I prefer RAID-10 because the rebuild time is based on the size of a
drive pair, not the entire array.
Anyone tested RAID 50 and/or 60
John Doe wrote:
From: Thomas Harold thomas-li...@nybeta.com
Yah, RAID-5 is a bad idea anymore with the large drive sizes. RAID-6 or
RAID-10 is a far better choice.
I prefer RAID-10 because the rebuild time is based on the size of a
drive pair, not the entire array.
Anyone tested RAID 50
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Harold thomas-li...@nybeta.com wrote:
On 1/7/2010 10:54 AM, John Doe wrote:
From: Karanbir Singhmail-li...@karan.org
On 01/07/2010 02:30 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
KB, thanks. When you say dont go over 1 TiB in storage per spindle
what are you referring
On 01/06/2010 09:35 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is not directly related to CentOS but still: we are trying to set
up some storage servers to run under Linux - most likely CentOS. The
storage volume would be in the range specified: 8-15 TB. Any
recommendations as far as
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 01/06/2010 09:35 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is not directly related to CentOS but still: we are trying to set
up some storage servers to run under Linux - most likely CentOS. The
storage volume
On 1/7/2010 9:30 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Karanbir Singhmail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 01/06/2010 09:35 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is not directly related to CentOS but still: we are trying to set
up some storage servers to run
On 01/07/2010 02:30 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
KB, thanks. When you say dont go over 1 TiB in storage per spindle
what are you referring to as spindle?
disk. it boils down to how much data do you want to put under one
read/write stream.
the other thing is that these days 1.5TB disks are the
At Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:30:17 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 01/06/2010 09:35 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is not directly related to CentOS but still: we are trying to set
From: Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org
On 01/07/2010 02:30 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
KB, thanks. When you say dont go over 1 TiB in storage per spindle
what are you referring to as spindle?
disk. it boils down to how much data do you want to put under one
read/write stream.
the
On 1/7/2010 10:54 AM, John Doe wrote:
From: Karanbir Singhmail-li...@karan.org
On 01/07/2010 02:30 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
KB, thanks. When you say dont go over 1 TiB in storage per spindle
what are you referring to as spindle?
disk. it boils down to how much data do you want to put under
I also heard that disks above 1TB might have reliability issues.
Maybe it changed since then...
I remember rumors about the early 2TB Seagates.
Personally, I won't RAID SATA drives over 500GB unless they're
enterprise-level ones with the limits on how long before the drive
reports a problem
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 05:28:34PM +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
I also heard that disks above 1TB might have reliability issues.
Maybe it changed since then...
I remember rumors about the early 2TB Seagates.
Personally, I won't RAID SATA drives over 500GB unless they're
On 01/07/2010 05:28 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
An often overlooked issue is the rebuild time with Linux software raid and
all hw raid controllers I have seen. On large drives the times are so long
as a result of the sheer size, if the array is degraded you are exposed during
the rebuild.
As
14 matches
Mail list logo
