• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Raid

Y

Youssef

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
120
What is the best RAID array to setup which has the best balance of fault tolerance, performance and redundancy... plus low cost? A lot of people say RAID level 5 is the best.. what do you guys think of RAID 5 + 0?! or RAID 5 + 1.. or any others?
 
Raid 5 is a favorite because it has the read performance of RAID 0 (or 10) and with a caching controller acceptable write performance, and you only "lose" one drive from the total array for parity. (so if you use 3 drives you lose one, if you use 10 drives you still just lose one drive)

==>Lazn
 
If you have enough drives raid 50 gives you the best possible combination of performance and fault tolerance. The minimum drives though is 6 with a better percantage of data the more drives you use.
 
Lazn_Work said:
Raid 5 is a favorite because it has the read performance of RAID 0 (or 10) and with a caching controller acceptable write performance, and you only "lose" one drive from the total array for parity. (so if you use 3 drives you lose one, if you use 10 drives you still just lose one drive)

==>Lazn
Click to expand...

i thought in RAID 5, parity was distributed among all drives?
 
Youssef said:
i thought in RAID 5, parity was distributed among all drives?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the total drive space lost to parity = one drive.

RAID 3 has a dedicated parity drive, but otherwise is very similar to RAID 5.

==>Lazn
 
Youssef said:
What is the best RAID array to setup which has the best balance of fault tolerance, performance and redundancy...
Click to expand...
I'd say this is 3 questions. Here they are:
fault tolerance: raid 1. two disks, same stuff on both. You can lose any disk and lose no data.
performance: raid 0. for desktop usage, no, but for server stuff or video editing it is faster.
redundancy: raid 6 is my favorite, it allows for more than one spare disk. I only know of this being implemented in Linux's software raid, don't know of any hardware controllers.

Which one you actually use depends on what you do with it.
 
You can get almost the same reduancy with raid 50 as you can with raid 6. The only instance where raid 6 is better is if you had 2 drives on the same stripe fail which would cause you to lose the array.
 
Youssef said:
How about the performance of raid 6 compared to that of 50??
Click to expand...


Raid 50 is bascically the only option because I don't know of any hardware controller that is capable of raid 6. Theoretically raid 6 should be a little better on writes because there are 2 XOR operations. Raid 50 has 2 XOR and 1 stripe. The stripe is almost nothing compared to the XOR. For reads raid 50 is a little better becuase of the stripped nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top