View Single Post
  #9  
Old January 1st 04, 04:03 AM
Tim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

Sorry I meant to address Scotter....

The most important thing in all this? If you are specifying a config for
someone else, make sure the config is appropriate and the customer
understands or accepts the pitfalls / benefits of the options at hand.

You do seem to think that disc subsystem performance is *the* most important
thing. Often it is secondary to data integrity and reliability - or even
further behind than that.

Most of the machines I install are database servers, so raid 1 or 10 is
always the way to go. Most recent machine has 12 x seagate U320's in raid 10
Pity its not mine. If I had to specify a system for someone doing video
editing I would defintitely follow your leads.

Quote of the day "drives are like light bulbs"...

Does that mean we should buy Russian disc drives? Their light bulbs are
supposed to be extremely reliable.

Happy new year too!

- Tim




"Ron" wrote in message
...
Nice response, Tim...although I seem to have become the "target" of the
info, rather than the OP. Nevertheless, I always learn something, and
appreciate *anyone's* thoughts.

I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to add an opinion.
(Naturally this is based upon my OWN adventures.)

If you create a striped array with two identical drives (+see note below+)
then you will be enjoying very decent performance. But, yes, you are at
greater risk of data loss. My suggestion is to get the array running
nicely, and then create a cloned image on a THIRD drive [which is outside
the array]. Then, in the event of a failure on one of the RAIDed drives,
you can replace the failed drive, (recreate the array) and restore the
cloned image.

Unfortunately, drives are like light bulbs; they can last for years &
years...or fail after 500 hours. You never know. And unfortunately
SMART-type sentries are not yet 100% reliable. So you have to weigh the
odds; how long will it be before one of two RAIDed drives fails? Six
months? Three years? I would suggest that the odds favour the latter.
Regardless, if you set it up as a mirror, you will be *without* the RAID0
advantage for all of the time that passes UNTIL a drive fails. I think

that
a concientious backup program is sufficient "insurance" to warrant risking

a
striped array. Heck - you could even create an image on TWO separate
[non-RAIDed] drives...and/or on an *external* drive, if that makes you

feel
any safer!

Admittedly, it can get a bit silly. You have to balance these things. In
any case, it's always interesting to hear the logic that people employ
during these musings. (So, Scotter - please let us know, OK?)

Happy New Year, gentlemen.
Ron