I have used the 3Ware (now AMCC) products with considerable success. They can be confiuged to raid 1, raid 10, and raid 5 formats as well as a bod configuration.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 13:40 +0100, Marton Gabor wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> I'm going to recieve 4x250Gb SATA disks to our new server, and my first > >> idea was to make 2xRAID1 and then make 1xRAID0 out of the RAID1 arrays > >> using Linux software raid so that I have our data mirrored and still I > >> can use 500Gb storage space and handle it as one big "disk". > >> So my questions would be: > >> - could someone give me a good howto? Sorry, but I have never had > >> the chance to make a RAID array before and I have no experience and > >> Google doesn't seem to be helpful in this case. > >> - do I need to make a /boot partition which is not part of any > >> arrays or will grub boot from raid1+0? > >> > > grub can boot from raid1, raid0+1 will need a (small) boot partition. > > > > With 4 disks you could also build a raid5 with little overhead, takes a > > tad more cpu and gives you 750G capacity (or 500 with one hotspare) > > > Take note that both using RAID5 and RAID10 in software will use a > significant amount of CPU*; normally speaking (in a hardware > configuration) RAID10 would outperform RAID5 by 30% or more, but since > it's in software the RAID0 has to be layered on top of the RAID1, > increasing its overhead by no small amount. > > I'd go with the RAID1 with LVM solution mentioned earlier if you intend > to retain any performance worth mentioning. > > If there are decent Linux drivers for it, I'd highly recommend a RAID > card that can do RAID5 or RAID10 in hardware. > > *Actually, the RAID10 solution won't use nearly as much CPU as the > RAID5, but the RAID10 will spend a lot more time waiting on disk I/O, so > the net result will likely be similar, if not actually worse. > > > > -- -- [email protected] mailing list
