"You do not understand that RAID 10 gives you the maximum data protection AND performance over RAID 6 and RAID 5."Īnd how can you assume everyone needs maximum data protection?Īnd how do you know their budget? If they CAN'T buy drives but need more space than the existing drives support in RAID 10 configuration? Maybe the chassis won't support enough drives for 10? RAID 5 is not a problem unless you try to use it in every situation or assume it is some kind of backup.
If it was that critical, why do you not have some sort of fail-over configuration? If you have a RAID down/inaccessible and that is unacceptable, THEN you can blame your RAID level in part, and your High Availability planning as a bigger part. If you have a data loss that is unrecoverable, your problem is your backups. That just isn't a reflection of reality. You make it sound like every bad block will close the doors forever. Bad environment, bad backups, bad maintenance are MUCH more likely to be the culprit. How many RAID 5 have you personally used? How many experienced a data loss due to RAID? How many times was that data loss critical? How often was it unrecoverable to an acceptable level, via backups or another method? I've worked in a server support environment where every call is a failure. "Īnd how do you know their budget? If they CAN'T buy drives but need more space than the existing drives support in RAID 10 configuration? Maybe the chassis won't support enough drives for a 10? You can't possibly know their $/GB needs. "RAID 10 is cost effective, to say that it's not is ridiculous. RAID 5 increases speed with added nodes as well, just not as much of an increase as a 10. The stripping begins to overcome that at about 6 nodes in a 10 but often is not detectable by users in real applications until 8 or more. The RAID 10 losses speed to redundancy measures just like any RAID. The speed increase comes with added nodes. I've personally benchmarked and a four node RAID 5 often out-performs a four node RAID 10. " You do not understand that RAID 10 gives you the maximum data protection AND performance over RAID 6 and RAID 5."Īnd how can you assume everyone needs maximum data protection? Performance? You are going to need to prove that one. To assume, without even asking, that their needs are the same as yours, is wrong. You can even state why RAID 5 doesn't meet your needs. In YOUR environment, there may be no use/place for it. You are ignoring the uses and restrictions that SMB often needs. Saying RAID 5 should never be used is like saying you should never use a watch because a phone is always updated by the cellular provider. RAID 10 is cost effective, to say that it's not is ridiculous. You do not understand that RAID 10 gives you the maximum data protection AND performance over RAID 6 and RAID 5. *or you have SSD's (who different matter when talking about RAID 5 then).have really small disks (I personally consider any disk above 300GB too large for RAID 5).Are you insinuating that RAID 10 is expensive and enterprise only technology? RAID 5 is never, never an acceptable option in this day in age unless you: I'm sure we're all aware of the best RAID configuration, but not everyone can afford it nor does every situation require it. It's a balance between cost, performance and redundancy that will serve it's intended purpose. And for what he intends to do, implementing RAID 5 will work just fine, though RAID 6 would be better. But we're talking about Bnard's business. To be truthful, I run a number of virtual servers on a hyper-v cluster.
0 kommentar(er)
