|
[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[NMLUG] RAID0 vs RAID1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
havoc wrote:
| With RAID1, you'll, effectively have one 160 GB drive spinning on two,
| separate spindles. If one drive dies on you, you lose everything.
|
| j
|
| Tim Emerick wrote:
|
|> I'm building a replacement samba server. The motherboard has a builtin
|> Promise RAID controller which I intend to use with 2 80gig ATA100 EIDE
|> HD's.
|> My choices from the controller are RAID0 (mirroring?) or RAID1
|> (striping?).
|> Applications are fairly basic with an equal amount of both reads and
|> writes. I understand that if my application was mostly read-only then
|> mirroring would
|> be better but since I'll be doing both I'm leaning towards striping for
|> performance reasons.
|>
|> Since the RAID controller is hardware I'm assuming that I don't have
|> to do
|> anything special with Linux. Linux will see the raid array as a single
|> drive.
|>
|> Any comments?
|>
|> Thanks in advance.
|>
|> Tim Emerick
|
|
|
Uh, actually raid0 is striping and raid1 is mirroring.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1547503
I strongly suggest people not use raid0 for anything other than
high-performance storage of large, temporary files. The problem with
raid0 is that, as havoc mentioned, if you lose one drive, you lose all
your data. Really, raid0 IS NOT RAID. I would only imagine it being
very handy as a super-fast "scratch" drive that you would dump large
media files on to process. There's some people who actually run their
main filesystems on raid0, and I pity them, because they have actually
doubled their points-of-catastrophic-failure, IE, instead of risking the
fault of just one HD, now they are risking the fault of two HDs for
their sensitive data. Do not use raid0 in any production environment.
If you need faster performance, invest in raid5 kit and scsi drives.
raid1 is simple mirroring. You store and read the exact same data from
both physical hard drives. This doesn't provide you with any
performance gain (well, it does in some cases, but in others it can
actually slow you down...I think it's a wash), but it *DOES PROVIDE
REDUNDANCY*. The idea is if one hard drive dies, you still have a
complete, fully-functional copy on the other hard drive.
Hope this helps. :-)
- -Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCGmT1nURHNoE9YE4RAhDFAJ4gM2j81UKmo/CyzjU0ujIMNOfu0ACgyhN2
v7amDftqhyqjLZ82tVcsG4E=
=YfI3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
