First, thanks for all your answers! kashani schrieb: > However if you're running a file share that is primarily reads, aka > just about every file share in the world, RAID5 will work just fine and > give you much more space. Assuming you're got a limited budget and > you're doing general file serving I'd err on the side of more space. If > you're running specialized applications like email, video editing, > databases then you may want to look at other things besides RAID5. > > kashani
That's just the point. The server will be used to store bigger files (lots of digital photos, videos, etc.) and publish them. Concerning Ronan's last sentence I'd stick to speed and reliability as the most important points. At least with the load of several users that'll access the files at the same time RAID5 would probably be not enough. Another point is rebuild time in which RAID10 would beat RAID5. I will give RAID10 a try. That means a configuration of 4 250GB disks with a total of 500GB space which fits comfortably our needs. Later I will describe my experiences.
begin:vcard fn:Christian Spoo n:Spoo;Christian adr;quoted-printable:;;Am Kaiser 26;W=C3=BCrselen;NRW;52146;Deutschland email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;fax:02405/475071 tel;home:02405/493466 tel;cell:0176/61055475 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
