Quote:
|
Originally Posted by queonda
Sounds like you've been messing around with Raid for a while (i don't mean the bug spray)
|
I use them for work : RAID5 for database server, RAID 1 for other servers.
Quote:
|
I've heard of 1+0 is a good raid. What's your opinion?
|
It's depend on your budget and what you want to achieve, so I'll begin with a few facts :
RAID0 = you distribute your logical volume betwen drives, with no redudancy (loose one drive, you loose everything). This is used for maximum write/read performance. Minimum two drives.
RAID1 = Mirroring, you copy drive content onto another one. Redundancy is great. Performance are good for reading, fair for writing. You loose 50% of drive capacity (two drives)
RAID5 = Distribute logical volume between at least three drives with parity. A block of data is written on drives like this : Part A on drive A, Par B on drive B, Parity on drive C. A and B are the useful data, C only helps reconstruct A or B with the remaining one. A,B,C are not always on the same drive for better peformance. Redundancy is great. Performance are very good for reading, fair for writing (poor reading / writing when rebuilding). You loose 30% of drive capacity with three drives (25% with four, 20% with five and so on)
RAID 0+1 or 1+0 = you combine a mirrored volume with a spanned volume. Either you span a volume on two mirrored volumes, or you mirror two spanned volumes. Performance are good for reading and writing. Redudancy is great. You are loosing 50% of drive capacity (four drives)
So RAID 0+1/1+0 achieve the best performance for a redudant solution, but for a higher cost than RAID5.
I personally choose RAID5 because
* I do find performance to be enough for HTPC
* It's cheaper
* Only three drives needed, HTPC cases are generaly limited in space and also it is always recommended to have a dedicated power line (from the PSU) to each drive: for redudancy reason and also because two drives on the same power line can issue a failure of one of the drive (power drain).
Regards,
Stéphane.