From: Hendrik Friedel <hendrik@friedels.name>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: raid 5 and different device size
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 22:03:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55510B14.7090204@friedels.name> (raw)
Hello,
I need your advice for the following scenario:
I do have three -identical- 3TB HDD. On these I store:
-Backups (Images of my Families Laptop; Backup of the Machines (the one
with the HDD) running System).
-Videos (recordings, not essential)
-HomeVideos (Familiy, essential)
-Photos
-Documents
Now I intend to:
* increase the available disc space
* stop worrying how much space is available on which drive
* create redundancy
* have low operating cost (power-consumption)
So, I need to buy one additional HDD.
And I want to combine the drives to one big volume.
I am aware that raid is no backup.
Thus, I backup the HomeVideos and the Photos on an external drive not
connected to the power supply and USB.
I think, that I do not need raid5, depending on the definition of 'not
essential'. Nevertheless, raid5 would efficiently (at low cost) decrease
the likelyhood of loss of the 'non-essential' data.
Furthermore, raid5 would fill the gap that I have between backups (the
fact, that I do these backup manually means that I do not do them every
day) and at least safe me from hardware failures.
So, yes, I think I do want raid5 and I want to combine.
But what size of HDD do I want to buy? The best value (cost per TB) I
get for 3TB drives. So I could by two 3TB drives, one for additional
space, the other for the parity information.
Or I could by one bigger drive, with potentially lower power
consumption. But how would the raid5 look in this case? I fear, only 3TB
of the 6 would be redundant and the other 3 would be not redundant, right?
Now the last point: Power consumption: Under which conditions can the
drives spin down in case of raid5? I assume that all drives have to run
as in case the data is written on any one of the drives, right?
Is that also true during reading of data, i.e. is the parity also
checked for read operations?
Thanks for your advice in advance,
Hendrik
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avast.com
next reply other threads:[~2015-05-11 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-11 20:03 Hendrik Friedel [this message]
2015-05-11 20:13 ` raid 5 and different device size Hugo Mills
2015-05-11 21:23 ` ronnie sahlberg
2015-05-12 0:22 ` Andrew E. Mileski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55510B14.7090204@friedels.name \
--to=hendrik@friedels.name \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).