From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: RAID 10 Repairs Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 18:28:40 -0500 Message-ID: <51B3BE28.40305@hardwarefreak.com> References: <51AC260F.8050806@hardwarefreak.com> <51B36B4C.4090101@tmr.com> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51B36B4C.4090101@tmr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bill Davidsen Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 6/8/2013 12:35 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> >> Or just acquire two 2TB drives an mirror them. 20x 250GB drives in >> RAID10 is 2.5TB net space. Surely you don't currently have 20 drives in >> this RAID array. If you're acquiring 250GB drives in 2013 I'd guess >> you're not after performance. So reducing spindle count shouldn't be an >> issue, should it? >> > Actually the only reason to use small drives any more is for > performance, fast drives (10k+ rpm) tend to be small. And expensive. The WD Velociraptor 250 SATA is the only 250GB drive ever sold with a 10K+ spindle. All others are SAS, and are 73, 146, 300, 450, 600, 900GB. If he has 250GB Raptors and needs the random IOPS performance, then it makes sense to maintain the RAID10 array. If not and he simply needs capacity... > I agree that this user probably isn't doing that. > I see Newegg has decent TB drives for $59 now, not server grade, but > decent stuff. then the larger mirror pair makes more sense. -- Stan