| 1 |
First, thanks for all your answers! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
kashani schrieb: |
| 4 |
> However if you're running a file share that is primarily reads, aka |
| 5 |
> just about every file share in the world, RAID5 will work just fine and |
| 6 |
> give you much more space. Assuming you're got a limited budget and |
| 7 |
> you're doing general file serving I'd err on the side of more space. If |
| 8 |
> you're running specialized applications like email, video editing, |
| 9 |
> databases then you may want to look at other things besides RAID5. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> kashani |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's just the point. The server will be used to store bigger files |
| 14 |
(lots of digital photos, videos, etc.) and publish them. Concerning |
| 15 |
Ronan's last sentence I'd stick to speed and reliability as the most |
| 16 |
important points. At least with the load of several users that'll access |
| 17 |
the files at the same time RAID5 would probably be not enough. Another |
| 18 |
point is rebuild time in which RAID10 would beat RAID5. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I will give RAID10 a try. That means a configuration of 4 250GB disks |
| 21 |
with a total of 500GB space which fits comfortably our needs. Later I |
| 22 |
will describe my experiences. |
Archives