<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>With RAID5 you’re still at risk from
losing 2 drives and moreover it is ANY 2 drives. At least with RAID10 you
have to lose 2 specific drives at the same time. You save nothing but
space with RAID5 configuration and your risk increases.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Of course for real paranoia one could use
RAID15. Even if your array doesn’t do it you might be able to
achieve it by using hardware RAID5 mirroring to prevent two LUNs to the system
then use software RAID1 mirroring to use both LUNs as mirrors. (Or maybe
that’s RAID 51 – it’s to early in the week for me to think
about it…)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><a
href="http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/multLevel15-c.html">http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/multLevel15-c.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Of course that says RAID51 is very
inefficient.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
ale-bounces@ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces@ale.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Ken Ratliff<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, January 20, 2009
12:56 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> ale@ale.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [ale] ATL Colocation
and file server suggestions</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On Jan 20, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Jeff Lightner wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Seeing two mirrors drop out in RAID10 shouldn't be an issue so long as<br>
you have two spares because it should be able to recreate both mirrors<br>
as it is both mirrored and parity striped. (Losing two in RAID1
would<br>
of course be an issue [assuming you didn't have a 3rd mirror]).
What<br>
hardware array was being used that dropping two mirrors caused a problem<br>
for RAID10?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Maybe I didn't say that clearly enough - I've seen a RAID 10 lose both
drives of a single mirror (in other words, the stripe set was broken, total
data loss, chaos, screaming, and finally a restore from backup!) multiple
times. And yes, I felt like God hated me, along with a few other supernatural
entities. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I'll have to say that even if having two mirrors drop in RAID10 were a<br>
problem it must be a sign that God hates the person that had it if the<br>
two drives that failed (assuming it was only two) happened to be the<br>
ones that were mirrors of each other. We've been using RAID10 for the<br>
last 4 years since our last major RAID5 fiasco and have not seen such a<br>
failure.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Hehe, I've noticed that RAID level preference seems to be alot like OS
preference. You are shaped by your experiences and react based on them. I don't
trust RAID 10 (though I'll use it when I can't use RAID5, ie for a database
server) and I've never had that much of a problem with RAID5. The closest thing
was a 6TB array in which a drive died and another one was showing DRIVE-ERROR,
but it made it through the first rebuild to replace the dead drive, and then
through the second to replace the one showing error like a champ.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>If I had my way, I'd yank the drives out of the servers entirely, just
build a nice sexy SAN and export disks to the servers via iSCSI. But that's....
expensive.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:ale-bounces@ale.org">ale-bounces@ale.org</a> [<a
href="mailto:ale-bounces@ale.org">mailto:ale-bounces@ale.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Pat<br>
Regan<br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:56 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:ale@ale.org">ale@ale.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [ale] ATL Colocation and file server suggestions<br>
<br>
Ken Ratliff wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>However, software RAID 1, 10 is excellent and performance compatible<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>with a hardware card.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I still prefer to do RAID 10 on hardware. I've found software raid to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>be pretty finicky, drives dropping out of the array for no good <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>reason, and you don't notice it until the slight performance hit for
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>the rebuild makes you go 'hm.'<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
If drives are randomly dropping out of Linux software RAID something is<br>
wrong. I can only recall having two machine that had random drives<br>
dropping out of MD devices. Both showed errors when running memtest86.<br>
One was a bad CPU, I believe the other was bad RAM (IIRC).<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I actually don't like RAID 10 at all. I'd rather toss the 4 drives
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>into a RAID5 and get more space. Sure, a RAID 10 will allow you to
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>survive 2 dead drives, as long as it's the right 2 drives. I've seen
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>both drives of one mirror fail in a RAID 10 a few times, and that has<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>pretty much the same result as 2 dead drives in a RAID 5.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Redundancy isn't the first reason to choose RAID 10 over RAID 5. If it<br>
were, everyone would just choose RAID 6 since that would let you lose<br>
any two drives.<br>
<br>
RAID 5 has a terribly write performance problem. Doing a random<br>
uncached write to a RAID 5 involves a read and a write to one stripe on<br>
every drive.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Software RAID1 I have no problem with though. It's quick, easy, the
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>performance hit is negligible unless you have something that's really<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>pounding the disk i/o and as someone else mentioned, being able to
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>split the mirror and use them as fully functional drives does <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>occasionally have it's uses.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Hardware RAID 1 shouldn't have a write performance penalty. Software<br>
RAID 1 (or 10) requires double the bus bandwidth for writes. I can't<br>
speak for all implementations, but Linux MD RAID 1 spreads reads out<br>
over all drives in the raid set.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Yeah, we found out the hard way that software RAID5 is a very very bad<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>idea, especially if you're running it on a high activity web server.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>After enough times of having a drive in software raid5 die before
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>you're done rebuilding from the previous drive failure, you kind of
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>learn that maybe this isn't such a good idea (or you tell the night
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>crew to turn apache off so that the array can rebuild in peace, but
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>that's not something properly spoken of in public!). The performance
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>hit for software RAID5 just isn't worth implementing it.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Your slow rebuilds likely had nothing to do with the performance of<br>
software RAID 5. I would imagine you needed to tweak<br>
'/proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_min' up from the default of 1MB/sec.<br>
<br>
There is very little reason for a hardware controller to beat Linux MD<br>
at RAID 5, especially on modern hardware. It only requires one more<br>
drive worth of bus bandwidth than a hardware controller would require.<br>
Processors have always been able to compute parity faster than current<br>
hardware cards. dmesg on my laptop tells me that I can compute RAID 6<br>
parity at 2870 megabytes per second.<br>
<br>
I am not saying software RAID is for everyone. It has other advantages<br>
besides cost, but if you have a large budget those advantages aren't as<br>
useful :).<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Now with that being said, no form of RAID is truly safe. I had a <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>server today drop both drives in one of it's RAID1's. They were older<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>36 gig SCSI's, so it was about time anyway, but losing both of them
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>meant I got to spend time flattening the box and reinstalling it. This<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>is also why I try to avoid using drives from the same manufacturer and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>batch when building arrays, as well. If you don't, you better pray to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>god that the rebuild completes before the next one dies. It's said
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>that RAID is no substitute for a proper backup, and that's true. (And<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>my life being somewhat of an essay in irony, the box that dropped both<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>drives in the mirror today was being used as a backup server.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
This paragraph reminded me of three(!) things. RAID is not a backup.<br>
You know this, but lots of people don't.<br>
<br>
Second, have you ever had the annoyance of replacing a failed drive with<br>
another of the same make/model and the replacement drive is in fact<br>
smaller than the failed drive? Whenever I use software RAID I sacrifice<br>
a few percent off the end of the drive just to keep this from happening.<br>
<br>
Which reminds me of another aspect of software RAID that has been<br>
helpful for me in the past. Software RAID is managed at the partition<br>
level. On smaller boxes I've often set up a relatively small RAID 1 or<br>
10 at the front of the drives and RAID 5 on the rest.<br>
<br>
My home media server is set up like this, and so is my person Xen host<br>
that I have in a <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">colo.</st1:place></st1:State>
I'm very budget conscious when I spend my own<br>
dollars. The Xen server has an uptime of 300 days right now with no<br>
RAID failures :).<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(Also, I'm not preaching at you, Jim, I'm sure you know all this crap,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I'm just making conversation!)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
I like conversation, and I could just as easily be on your side of this<br>
one. :)<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>RAID 1 recovery is substantially quicker and drives<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>are low cost enough to not need the N-1 space of RAID 5.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>All depends on your storage needs. We have customers with 4 TB arrays,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>6 TB arrays, and one with an 8.1 TB array (which presents some <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>interesting challenges when you need to fsck the volume.... why we
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>used reiser for the filesystem on that array, I have no idea). Those
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>are a little hard to do in RAID 1 :)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
I'm up near 4 TB at home. That isn't even a big number anymore! :)<br>
<br>
I had 4 TB back in 2001. That was mighty expensive, though, and it sure<br>
wasn't a single volume. I only mention this so you don't just think I'm<br>
some punk with a RAID 5 on his TV blowing smoke :)<br>
<br>
Pat<br>
----------------------------------<br>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential
information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of
the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the
sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.<br>
----------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>