Comment Feed for RAID5 v RAID10 (Perimeter on TechNet Edge)

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

PederVM — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:02:31 GMT

Please support BAARF: http://www.baarf.com/ and kill every RAID system other than RADI 0, 1 and 10.

Battle Against Any RAID Five.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

ye110wbeard — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:17:47 GMT

Ooops... Nope.

This was a promise Controller. They just called it Raid 1+0 (Is that 10? I thought that was closer to a Raid 5 mirrored)

On Raid 1+0 it was a stripe on two drives that was mirrored to another two drives.

So if you lost a physical drive, it was "Degraded" but the Logical Raid was still alive since you had a "matching stripe" still running. (3 out of 4 drives)

If you lost a second drive later on that happened to be the mirror of the dead drive you were toast. But that's what alerting is all about. But the odds were a little more in your favour. (You would have to lose the twin to the failed to be dead, you COULD theoretically lose and second drive and NOT be dead in the water, I think I've had that on an older Promise controller at least once)

Of course if it's a pure stripe and you lose a drive, well go call CBL right away. But NOBODY would ever put critical data on a pure stripe or span right? Right? (Sorry ... cough.... I've cleaned up consultants who did just that. SQL database for Great plains no less)

Nope I prefer hardware raid over software ANY time (as long as the vendor doesn't do something stupid and funky like intel used to on earlier mirror controllers for IDE)

Software was a wonderful option when Raid Controllers were expensive. But nowadays for an SMB when a pretty much stock $150 Intel motherboard will have at least a mirrored controller, and 500 gig drives are inexpensive; I'll opt for a hardware over software anytime.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

AdamBomb — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:26:27 GMT

I think he is saying you'd have to have a drive fail, and the corresponding drive in the mirror set, before you'd lose data.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

KryptosKiller — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:17:35 GMT

ye110wbeard Wrote

"We always found them fast and reliable. The nice bit was you did have to lose two drives and have them be the SAME two drives to be dead in the water. That was on SBS 2000."

Are you saying that if one drive failed that they both did and you lost all data?

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

ye110wbeard — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:15:21 GMT

I thought there was a LITTLE more to Raid 10 than a "Mirrored Stripe" but we used to run those arrays (1+0) on older promise controllers.

We always found them fast and reliable. The nice bit was you did have to lose two drives and have them be the SAME two drives to be dead in the water. That was on SBS 2000.

Oh on the newer Intel Raid controllers, you have to adjust the scheduled consistency check tho. I ran into a site where the stock install (no prompt on setting or changing it) Ran a consistency check on the Raid 5 array weekly.

Nice just that it took two 1/2 days to complete all while the server was live on a 1.4TB array. Found the docs on the LSI Logic site (They actually make the chipset) and the recommended setting for THAT size of array was once every 12 weeks.

Boy did THAT ever help on performance... ;)

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

KryptosKiller — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:26:48 GMT

Yeah I've always installed RAID5 I install SBS2003 all of the time and RAID1 for the OS and RAID5 for the data seems to be the best cinfiguration to me.

It was just that a competitor suggeste RAID10, which I wouldn't for thought of for SBS, so I was trying to figure out if I was missing something.

So far I haven't found any wow factor for using RAID10 over RAID5.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

ye110wbeard — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:39:27 GMT

ERP!

I think I should have said "INexpensive" - ie: cheap, affordable!

Like the "built-in human grammar checker" I should have plugged onto my eyes before hitting that "ADD" button.

Sorry all!

Sean

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

ye110wbeard — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:37:48 GMT

Software Raid 10? Presuming the System is booting from a non-software raid partition (Since it has to load the raid partition) theoretically it should.

But since Raid SATA and SAS controllers from Intel and Promise have gotten pretty expensive I wouldn't bother playing with it myself.

Cool but hardware kicks better.

Of course now that Terabyte drives are out, a pair of those mirrored should be interesting and nice a simple.... :)

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

gmarchetti — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:42:17 GMT

In principle, it should, but I have not tried it, hence I am reluctant to recommend it.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

KryptosKiller — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:19:35 GMT

Yes it is hardware, will it not work if software?

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

KryptosKiller — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:14:33 GMT

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it is hardware based. Would it not work if software based?

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

Duncan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:01:04 GMT

We have been working on the bug and we believe it has now been resolved

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

KingCobra — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:30:29 GMT

Yes, the perimeter forum has a bug and it is not displayed.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

gmarchetti — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:00:11 GMT

Yes, it will boot. The o/s volume will be striped AND mirrored, so the o/s will boot from the mirror. I am assuming hardware-based RAID, by the way.

Re: RAID5 v RAID10

KryptosKiller — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:59:12 GMT

This post is displayed on the Active Threads on the home page. But I can't see in the forum... is this a bug?