| 1 |
I have used the 3Ware (now AMCC) products with considerable success. They |
| 2 |
can be confiuged to raid 1, raid 10, and raid 5 formats as well as a bod |
| 3 |
configuration. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeroen Geilman wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 9 |
> > On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 13:40 +0100, Marton Gabor wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> >> Hi! |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> I'm going to recieve 4x250Gb SATA disks to our new server, and my first |
| 14 |
> >> idea was to make 2xRAID1 and then make 1xRAID0 out of the RAID1 arrays |
| 15 |
> >> using Linux software raid so that I have our data mirrored and still I |
| 16 |
> >> can use 500Gb storage space and handle it as one big "disk". |
| 17 |
> >> So my questions would be: |
| 18 |
> >> - could someone give me a good howto? Sorry, but I have never had |
| 19 |
> >> the chance to make a RAID array before and I have no experience and |
| 20 |
> >> Google doesn't seem to be helpful in this case. |
| 21 |
> >> - do I need to make a /boot partition which is not part of any |
| 22 |
> >> arrays or will grub boot from raid1+0? |
| 23 |
> >> |
| 24 |
> > grub can boot from raid1, raid0+1 will need a (small) boot partition. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > With 4 disks you could also build a raid5 with little overhead, takes a |
| 27 |
> > tad more cpu and gives you 750G capacity (or 500 with one hotspare) |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> Take note that both using RAID5 and RAID10 in software will use a |
| 30 |
> significant amount of CPU*; normally speaking (in a hardware |
| 31 |
> configuration) RAID10 would outperform RAID5 by 30% or more, but since |
| 32 |
> it's in software the RAID0 has to be layered on top of the RAID1, |
| 33 |
> increasing its overhead by no small amount. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> I'd go with the RAID1 with LVM solution mentioned earlier if you intend |
| 36 |
> to retain any performance worth mentioning. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> If there are decent Linux drivers for it, I'd highly recommend a RAID |
| 39 |
> card that can do RAID5 or RAID10 in hardware. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> *Actually, the RAID10 solution won't use nearly as much CPU as the |
| 42 |
> RAID5, but the RAID10 will spend a lot more time waiting on disk I/O, so |
| 43 |
> the net result will likely be similar, if not actually worse. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives