Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 06:48:06 -0800

For cases in which fault tolerance is most important.  For example, a high availability critical database server might be a good application for it.  Multiple drives fail (it happens), but it keeps on running.  I would probably run RAID 6 instead, with a failover cluster in that scenario, but if there was a need to move a complete set of disks to another server, perhaps as part of a datacenter migration, RAID 0+1 could be beneficial.
 
There's an application for just about every configuration under the sun, but only a few are generally useful.
 
Darin.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs

So why use RAID 0+1 ?  Costs more, performs less, adds only slightly more reliability (data should be backed anyone and no RAID should be fully trusted)

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs

 

Nope.  Note that twice as much data is written with 0+1, compared to only N/(N-1) with 5.  So data transfer would be higher with 5.

 

RAID 5 is less fault tolerant, uses fewer disks, and is generally higher performing, as portions of the data can be read/written from all disks in the array at the same time.


Darin.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:36 PM

Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs

 

Isn’t their chart wrong?  It shows RAID 5 as “very high” and “very high” while RAID 0+1 is only “high” and “very high” which would seem to indicate RAID 5 is better and uses less disks.  Looks like a typo ???

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Checca
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs

 

Here’s a good high level view of RAID levels…   http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html

 

I use their 8 drive SATA SCSI interface units with RAID 0+1 with my SQL servers and RS/6000 AIX servers.   Performance is two to three times any DELL or IBM raid arrays I’ve used.

 

 

Please note in real world usage I’ve seen RAID 0+1 well out run any RAID 10 array.

Christopher Checca
Packard Transport, Inc.
IT Department
24021 South Municipal Dr
PO Box 380
Channahon, IL.  60410
815 467 9260
815 467 6939 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.packardtransport.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim F.
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs

 

Hello All:

 

I haven't gotten any responses to any of my other questions that I've sent to the group, hopefully this one will.

 

I'm trying to spec out a new server and had a question for the group in regard to HDD configuration.  What kind of RAID setup works best on a mid-size Imail installation?  Is RAID-1 acceptable or is RAID-5 recommended? Also, would 15K RPM disks make a huge difference as opposed to 10K RPM disks?

 

Thanks,

Jim Frasch

Reply via email to