From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: berk walker Subject: Re: 4 disks: RAID-6 or RAID-10 .. Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:44:07 -0500 Message-ID: <43F5B707.3030005@panix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Gordon Henderson Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Gordon Henderson wrote: >I'm building a little test server and I wanted ~500GB of storage with >2-drive redundancy, so the best price vs. num. drives vs. the need for 2 >drive redundancy came to 4 x 250GB drives. (And I have a mobo with 5 SATA >ports, and taking into account case power requirements, etc. 4 drives has >worked out quiet well, and cheaper than 2 x 500GB drives!) > >So RAID-6, which I have have been using for a year or so now with good >results, or RAID-10, which I've never used. > >I suspect RAID-10 might give me more performance, not having the parity >calculations to do, but is it stable and reliable? I've not been paying >much attention to it recently ... (Servers intended use is what I >understand is termed 'LAMP' these days - Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, >although it's going to be handling up to 10,000 emails a day too with spam >and virus checking) > >Cheers, > >Gordon >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > RAID-6 *will* give you your required 2-drive redundancy. b-