| 1 |
Christian Spoo wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> That's just the point. The server will be used to store bigger files |
| 4 |
> (lots of digital photos, videos, etc.) and publish them. Concerning |
| 5 |
> Ronan's last sentence I'd stick to speed and reliability as the most |
| 6 |
> important points. At least with the load of several users that'll access |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
heh. I work for a video and photo sharing site and a good friend of mine |
| 9 |
works for an HD post production house. His I/O requirements are at least |
| 10 |
an order of magnitude higher than mine. Publishing vs editing, and it |
| 11 |
really depends on how one defines these things, are two very different |
| 12 |
workloads. I tend to have much more random reads than he does and have |
| 13 |
to partition data and disks to get around that. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That said in the four disk range RAID 10 in a single box is a pretty |
| 16 |
good deal. The cost starts to get ugly as your arrays get bigger and |
| 17 |
start having to pay for the shelf or enclosure. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1 shelf + (16 - 2 (hot spare & parity)) x 500GB x RAID 5 = 7TB usable |
| 20 |
1 shelf + (16/2) x 500GB x RAID10 = 4TB usable |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Assuming a total cost of $10k per, 28TB at RAID 5 you'd pay $40k and at |
| 23 |
RAID10 you'd pay $70k |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In a single box your only have to worry about drive costs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(3-1) x 250 = 500 GB |
| 28 |
(2/1) x 250 = 500 GB |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Assuming drives are $100 then it's the difference of $300 vs $400 which |
| 31 |
is a much better ratio than the shelf example. At this level going with |
| 32 |
better performance for that cost difference makes sense. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
This concludes today's lecture in system administration titled |
| 35 |
"Economics: Bane of Performance" :-) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
kashani |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives