WhoTom Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 Seems like RAID 5 should suffice - data striping for performance and parity for data security. Is the mirroring of RAID 10 worth the extra cost?
SDS Posted August 28, 2020 Author Posted August 28, 2020 Just now, WhoTom said: Seems like RAID 5 should suffice - data striping for performance and parity for data security. Is the mirroring of RAID 10 worth the extra cost? Retail is $19/drive per month
ColoradoBills Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, Buffalophil1948 said: Ummm, what? 3 1
Lurker Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 Speed? Sure. But why would you want redundency for the 'gems' posted by 80% of this place.... 4 1
technobot Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 I'd do it. It's the default for performance and reliability. Without seeing what else is offered I can't imagine you wouldn't want it, assuming it's the default offering. 1
Mr Info Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 Would I be correct to assume that AWS is too pricy? RAID Is not really a consideration there.
SDS Posted August 28, 2020 Author Posted August 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, Mr Info said: Would I be correct to assume that AWS is too pricy? RAID Is not really a consideration there. I think so. I'm curious if RAID 10 makes sense in the era of SSDs. I can double the RAM and double the processor benchmark for the price of two SSDs.
Rocky Landing Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 49 minutes ago, SDS said: I think so. I'm curious if RAID 10 makes sense in the era of SSDs. I can double the RAM and double the processor benchmark for the price of two SSDs. If you have SSDs, you should probably go see a doctor, get some penicillin, or something... 1 1 1
1ManRaid Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 I came in thinking RAID 10 was some gimmick lineup for offensive tackles... 1
CSBill Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 We ran that play in High School: it was a fake pitch and quick short pass to our Center who pulled left, and then he threw it back to the QB streaking (yeah, buck-naked) down the right side of the field, while everyone else ran to the left and yelling “Raid 10, Raid 10” .... yeah, the Bills should put that in the play book. 2
WhoTom Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 24 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said: I came in thinking RAID 10 was some gimmick lineup for offensive tackles... It's a spread formation, 2 TEs and 2 WRs, with each pair of receivers running mirrored routes. In the playbook, it's known as "Data-stripe full-redundancy." 1
1ManRaid Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 15 minutes ago, WhoTom said: It's a spread formation, 2 TEs and 2 WRs, with each pair of receivers running mirrored routes. In the playbook, it's known as "Data-stripe full-redundancy." That's a mouthful in the huddle with a loud crowd. "What was that? Dates are ripe for transparency?"
1st Ammendment NoMas Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 1 hour ago, CSBill said: We ran that play in High School: it was a fake pitch and quick short pass to our Center who pulled left, and then he threw it back to the QB streaking (yeah, buck-naked) down the right side of the field, while everyone else ran to the left and yelling “Raid 10, Raid 10” .... yeah, the Bills should put that in the play book. You must have went to St. Joes. I remembered trying to defend that play. But your QB looked more like a Raid 3.
albanyfan Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 Random array of inexpensive disks. After that I’m lost.
4BillsintheBurgh Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 5 hours ago, SDS said: I think so. I'm curious if RAID 10 makes sense in the era of SSDs. I can double the RAM and double the processor benchmark for the price of two SSDs. I looked into ssd's vs hdd's a little bit for my enterprise db servers and the drives are designed to last a number of write operations which makes redundancy useless because you would have two drives fail instead of just one. It's just tough for folks like me who have relied on redundancy with spinning disks to let go of that standard, especially because it makes us responsible if there is a physical failure that redundancy would have saved. I haven't seen numbers for the reliability of the ssd's in an enterprise class server vs hdd's, it just seems like the price/value make the ssd's the goto drive at this point. Nvme's are especially fast.? For this site, I would lean toward the ram and processor speed giving your users a much larger bang for your buck. Hopefully someone would monitor the drives for errors and be able to address an issue before it becomes a 5 alarm fire. The other side is how much of a pain would it be to recover from an ssd failure for you. Might be worth having the ability to run with a bad drive and not have to deal with any recovery even if failure is a long shot.
Ralonzo Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 (edited) I'd run RAID-5 on 4 drives, currently running RAID-6 on 8 drives (2 can degrade before data loss). But I run a dedicated rack box with an Areca card. Probably an anachronism by now but eh. Cloud is pretty spiffy now. Hard for the tin cans to keep up. Speed isn't my #1 so it's fine for me. IIRC the hardware RAID makes a big diff over software RAID for speed. Raid 10 would be somewhat equivalent to RAID-6 storage-wise but unless your hardware is super for the RAID-6 (or 5), 10 will do better for performance, as you're not throwing checksums and parity sectors out there. It's just using brute mirroring for your redundancy. A slight bit more susceptible to failure but still an infinitesimal likelihood, and doesn't rely on calculations. Edited August 29, 2020 by Ralonzo
Mike in Horseheads Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 5 hours ago, Rocky Landing said: If you have SSDs, you should probably go see a doctor, get some penicillin, or something... Please get a clue of what you know THE BOSS of the site is asking. 1
Recommended Posts