Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Hi
Is is possible to put the OS and the data on the raid 5 (3 x Scsi HD) or raid 1+0 on 4 or 5 Scsi HD? or do I need to seperate them?
Thanks
Ken
Yes as I read the question. The OS and data don't care if they are on the same volume. You should understand software and hardware raid versus how you might wish to use and access data or the server's role.
0 
Can you? Yes, provided you're not using the built in RAID capabilities of your OS.
Should you? Probably not.
"President Bush is doing everything he can to lower gas prices, including...making the oil companies so rich that maybe they'll get sick of money."
0
Thinking of getting a raid card, then put 3 SCSI HD in and install the os and data on it. C drive for os and d: drive for data.
or maybe 5 scsi hd, 2 for the os mirror
and 3 for the data using raid 5
0
The second idea sounds better to me.
"President Bush is doing everything he can to help lower gas prices...including making oil companies so rich that maybe they'll get sick of money and pass the savings on to you."
0
Raid 0+1 is faster than raid5 and has the exact same level of fault tolerance that raid5 does. It is faster due to using stripe sets.
Highly recommend setting up a 5th drive as hot space. Raid cards support this. Once configured it can automatically replace a failed drive.
This gives you time to schedule a downtime to replace the failed drive. Otherwise you have an immediate crisis because another[after the first one] drive failure means you lost everything.
0
"Raid 0+1 is faster than raid5 and has the exact same level of fault tolerance that raid5 does. It is faster due to using stripe sets."
Depends. RAID5 has a higher write penalty, so if you're doing a lot of writes to the drive, you suffer a lot more. It also has a lot to do with what kind of writes you're doing. Exchange for example tends to do better with 0+1, where as SQL more often RAID5 is a better choice because it doesn't benefit from 0+1 as much for performance.
Problem with 0+1 is it's not storage efficient, as you lose half of drive space of the used drives in the array. However, the more common mistake is for people to not make their RAID sets speed efficient, not storage efficient, and consequently, 0+1 often is dismissed as an option when it clearly can be the better choice. (Exchange is a GREAT example of this.)
"President Bush is doing everything he can to lower gas prices, including...making the oil companies so rich that maybe they'll get sick of money."
0
Thanks for your replies
We are just using the server as a file server with some software installed for sharing and some simple database program like outlook shared calendar, printer server, dhcp, dns and third party database to open up files.
If I could put the OS and data on 3 scsi ultra320 on a raid contoller without loosing much speed, that would be ok, rather than mirror the OS with 2 drives on the internal dual scsi interface and 3 drives for the data on the raid external contoller.
Ken
0
Well, there are other factors than performance and reduncancy, such as your budget.
Bottom line is if you only have 3 drives, your choice is already made - RAID5. It's the only solution that eliminates single point of failure for all data, and it would perform better than mirroring two and putting one drive alone to store something.
To make the decision, you need to know the pros and cons of each alternative, how much money you have, and what are your priorities between speed, redundancy, and spending less money. We can't decide your priorities or your budget, but we can help you make the best choice once you tell us those things.
"By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, ‘contentious, but futile protest vote by Democrats.’ By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you’ll be so wasted, you won't even notice the war in Syria!"
0
Also, how much usable storage are you gonna need now and in the future. That must be considered, too.
"By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, ‘contentious, but futile protest vote by Democrats.’ By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you’ll be so w
0
Want the server to last for the next 3years without upgrading the HD or ram etc. budget is $3000US. Storage now with the 2 servers together total is about 60G as some application is on it which takes up alot of room and digital pictures.
0
What is the rate of growth of data? Is that rate of growth increasing or expected to jump?
You gotta get some more specific hard numbers. What is the projected amount of data going to be (best estimate) in three years?
"By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, ‘contentious, but futile protest vote by Democrats.’ By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you’ll be so wasted you won't even notice the war in Syria!"
0
Easy technique for planning ahead is split OS from Data on different arrays/channels.
In other words mirror the OS and Raid the Data. This will allow you to backup the Data array, add drives, reinit the now larger array and restore the data.
Trying to anticipate your data growth can be tricky. So instead of planning for massive storage that you may or may not use, set your arrays up so you can easily expand them.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
