[rescue] Small RAID array setup

[Phil Stracchino]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:05:47PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, C. Magnus Hedemark wrote:
> > Many "sysadmin mill"-papered sysadmins will just use RAID 5 without
> > considering the consequences.  If you're running an ftp site where you
> > get lots of downloads but few uploads, RAID 5 is likely fine.  If you
> > are running a file server that does lots of writing, you may find it a
> > bit slow.
> 
> Very true.  Some sysadmins choose it because they don't know... some
> choose it because the higher-ups won't support the cost of a RAID-1/0+1/1+0
> setup...

And some choose it because they HAVE considered the pros and cons, and
it really is the best solution for their application.

Right now, most of my online storage is either mirrored or striped.  I
know perfectly well the stripe has no redundancy, but there's nothing
critical on it *and* I do nightly incremental and weekly differential
backups, so I don't really care about that.

When I have the money (for power and cooling) again, I'll bring my E3000
up and move all the storage to the E3000, and with the gobs of disk and
CPU it has (six 336MHz, and sixteen 9G Cheetahs distributed across two
controllers) I'll be able to RAID5 everything, keep a hot-spare, triple
my online capacity, and probably still maintain the same transfer rate I
have now with everything on the Ultra30 and its single 250MHz CPU and
single SCSI bus.


-- 
 .*********  Fight Back!  It may not be just YOUR life at risk.  *********.
 : phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
 :  alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net  :
 :   2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)   :
 :    Linux Now!   ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.    :