1 |
Mark Knecht posted on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:04:06 -0700 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Lastly, even if I completely buy into Duncan's well formed reasons about |
4 |
> why RAID1 might be faster, using 500GB drives I see no single RAID |
5 |
> solution for me other than RAID5/6. The real RAID1/RAID6 comparison from |
6 |
> a storage standpoint would be a (conceptual) 3-drive RAID6 vs 3 drive |
7 |
> RAID1. Both create 500GB of storage and can (conceptually) lose 2 drives |
8 |
> and still recover data. However adding another drive to the RAID1 gains |
9 |
> you more speed but no storage (buying into Duncan's points) vs adding |
10 |
> storage to the RAID6 and probably reducing speed. As I need storage what |
11 |
> other choices do I have? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Answering myself, take the 5 drives, create two RAIDS - a 500GB |
14 |
> 2-drive RAID1 for the system + VMs, and then a 3-drive RAID5 for video |
15 |
> data maybe? I don't know... |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Or buy more hardware and do a 2 drive SSD RAID1 for the system, or |
18 |
> a hardware RAID controller, etc. The options explode if I start buying |
19 |
> more hardware. |
20 |
|
21 |
Finally getting back to this on what's my "weekend"... |
22 |
|
23 |
Unfortunately, given 900 gigs media data and 150 gigs of VMs, with 5 500 |
24 |
gig drives to work with, you're right, simply making a raid1 out of |
25 |
everything isn't possible. |
26 |
|
27 |
You could do a 4-drive raid10, two-way striped and two-way mirrored, for |
28 |
a TB of storage for the media files and possibly squeeze the VMs between |
29 |
the SSD and the raid, with the 5th half-TB as a backup, but it'd be quite |
30 |
tight and non-optimal, plus losing the wrong two drives on the raid10 |
31 |
would put it out of commission so you'd have only one-drive-loss- |
32 |
tolerance there. |
33 |
|
34 |
You could buy a sixth half-TB and try either three-way-striping and two- |
35 |
way mirroring for the same one-drive-loss tolerance but a good 1.5 TB (3- |
36 |
way half-TB stripe) space, giving you plenty of space and thruput speed |
37 |
but at the cost of only single-drive-loss-tolerance. |
38 |
|
39 |
You could use the same six in a raid10 with the reverse configuration, |
40 |
two-way-stripe three-way-mirror, for better loss-of-two-tolerance but at |
41 |
only a TB of space and have the same squeeze as the 4-way raid10 (but now |
42 |
without the extra drive for backup), or... |
43 |
|
44 |
Personally, I'd probably be intensely motivated enough to try the 2-way- |
45 |
stripe 3-way-mirror 6-drive raid10, squeezing the media space as |
46 |
necessary to do it (maybe by using external drives for what wouldn't |
47 |
fit), but that's still a compromise... and includes buying that sixth |
48 |
drive. |
49 |
|
50 |
So the raid6 might well be the best alternative you have, given the data |
51 |
size AND physical device size constraints. |
52 |
|
53 |
But some time testing the performance of different configs and |
54 |
familiarizing yourself with the options and operation, as you've decided |
55 |
to do now, certainly won't hurt. I DID say I wasn't real strong on the |
56 |
chunk options, etc, myself, and you're using ext4, not the reiserfs I was |
57 |
using, and I believe ext4 has at least some potential performance upside |
58 |
compared to reiserfs, so it's quite possible that with some chunk/stride/ |
59 |
etc tweaking, you can get something better, performance-wise. Tho I |
60 |
expect raid6 will never be a speed demon, and may well never perform as |
61 |
you had originally expected/hoped. But better than the initial results |
62 |
should be possible, hopefully, and familiarizing yourself with things |
63 |
while experimenting has benefits of its own, so that's an idea I can |
64 |
agree with 100%. =:^) |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
68 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
69 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |