It will be a Windows 2008 server. Does it handle RAID 6? What's considered a large drive? 2 TB, 1.5 TB?
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Lloyd Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > At least with large, rackmount, enterprise arrays, the general consensus > with large drives is to use 2-drive parity, eg. RAID6. Depending on the > load you put on the controller, there is a non-trivial chance that > you'll have a second drive failure in the RAID-group during the time > that you're rebuilding. Frequently a rebuild on either RAID5 or RAID6 > with that big of a drive, might take 24-48 hours or more, sometimes > longer. Two failed drives in a RAID6 doesn't lose any data, but in a > RAID5 it would. > > If you'll have a fairly light I/O load on the server, you might be able > to get away with RAID5, since the reduced load will let the RAID > controller (or kernel, for software-raid) spend more of its resources > rebuilding when a drive does fail. > > > > Lloyd Brown > Systems Administrator > Fulton Supercomputing Lab > Brigham Young University > http://marylou.byu.edu > > On 06/22/2012 03:09 PM, Merrill Oveson wrote: >> plug: >> >> Building a server: >> >> one 1 TB - for the OS and programs. >> >> four 3 TB raid 5 - which should give me 9 TB usable. Correct? >> >> How reliable are the 3 TB drives these days? Am I taking a big risk here? >> >> thoughts? >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Merrill >> >> /* >> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net >> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug >> Don't fear the penguin. >> */ > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
