On 10 December 2014 at 17:33, James Harper <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 9 December 2014 at 20:22, Tim Hamilton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > If any of you had my hardware, how would you construct your storage >> layout? >> >> The more disks you have, the higher the chance of having a disk failure. >> The older the disks you have, the higher the chance of having a disk failure. >> I like low-maintenance, high-reliability solutions where they fit >> well, so I would aim for a system that uses a few, large, disks, and >> plan to replace them in 2-3 years. >> > > Your 7200RPM disk gets very likely gets under 100IOPS. More like 75. If you > are aiming for capacity with no regard for performance then fewer, larger > disks is likely a good solution, but if you have any performance requirements > at all then a greater number of smaller disks is a better option. Performance > should scale pretty much linearly with an increasing number of disks for > RAID10. > > Failing that, get a couple of small SSD's in a RAID1 configuration and run > bcache in front of your rotating disks. The performance difference is amazing.
I suspect the OP (and most home users) are thinking more of large-file (probably AV media) archives, and for larger files, spinning disks provide adequate performance. I agree, for real performance, SSDs are the way to go. Half-terabyte SSDs are affordable and have been for a while, so I don't bother with bcache or similar; I just go direct to SSD if performance matters. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
