From owner-freebsd-scsi Thu Dec 11 15:15:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23208 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:15:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-scsi) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA23199 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:15:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xgHf3-0004ij-00; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:04:53 -0800 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:04:51 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Wilko Bulte cc: walcaraz@indy3.gstone.com, freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID on FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <199712112108.WAA09859@yedi.iaf.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > 9 drives in an uncomfortable number for RAID5. Probably better to go > > Why would 9 drives be uncomfartable? Well, if you are going to making one arrray of 9 drives, write performance will bad. If you are going to making 3 arrays of 3 drives each, you will end up with a lot of overhead. RAID5 arrays of 5 drives is kinda of nice sweet spot. If you go much bigger, just use RAID0 over multiple RAID5. 10 drives is a much nicer number. > > with 10 drives instead, and make two 5 drive arrays. > > > > Tom > _ ______________________________________________________________________ > | / o / / _ Bulte email: wilko @ yedi.iaf.nl http://www.tcja.nl/~wilko > |/|/ / / /( (_) Arnhem, The Netherlands - Do, or do not. There is no 'try' > ---------------- Support your local daemons: run [Free,Net]BSD Unix ------ > > Tom