Ah, Thanks, raid 10 is different to raid 1+0 go figure.
I'll go with raid 10 then. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kym Kovan Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2007 2:51 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT: Server Recommendation Andrew Scott wrote: > But what about downtime? > > Raid 5 and Raid 10 provide extremely low downtime, and if they drives are > hot swappable then there is no downtime at all. > It depends on how and what you measure. RAID 1 also gives no downtime of hot-swappable (we consider that to be essential, machines with embedded rives are bad news if one fails). One aspect is the failure rate of the drives, the really high-reliability folk use batches of RAID arrays with drives from different batches in each array so the chance of two drives going down at once are minimised. I have a horror story from the early days of a brand new RAID 5 array losing two drives at once, instant loss of all data...... And to match that a horror story for one of our co-lo clients. Simple/cheap servers, two internal drives in RAID1. Server techo came along and replaced drive under guarantee and as it was rebuilding the drive the OS blue-screened, and the tech hit the reset button just at the moment when the RAID controller was rewriting the drive partition tables. Result: one very unhappy client....... > Backups are different altogether... > Not wrong. Speed generally not an issue, capacity is. Kym K --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
