Christian Spoo wrote:
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
heh. I work for a video and photo sharing site and a good friend of mine
works for an HD post production house. His I/O requirements are at least
an order of magnitude higher than mine. Publishing vs editing, and it
really depends on how one defines these things, are two very different
workloads. I tend to have much more random reads than he does and have
to partition data and disks to get around that.
That said in the four disk range RAID 10 in a single box is a pretty
good deal. The cost starts to get ugly as your arrays get bigger and
start having to pay for the shelf or enclosure.
1 shelf + (16 - 2 (hot spare & parity)) x 500GB x RAID 5 = 7TB usable
1 shelf + (16/2) x 500GB x RAID10 = 4TB usable
Assuming a total cost of $10k per, 28TB at RAID 5 you'd pay $40k and at
RAID10 you'd pay $70k
In a single box your only have to worry about drive costs.
(3-1) x 250 = 500 GB
(2/1) x 250 = 500 GB
Assuming drives are $100 then it's the difference of $300 vs $400 which
is a much better ratio than the shelf example. At this level going with
better performance for that cost difference makes sense.
This concludes today's lecture in system administration titled
"Economics: Bane of Performance" :-)
kashani
--
[email protected] mailing list
