Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:22:53 -0800 From: Milo Hyson <milo@cyberlifelabs.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID Performance Questions Message-ID: <EC5AC5CF-D8D2-4119-BACC-5950E87E95BB@cyberlifelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <a969fbd10701251350w7da17c9ew3f3a21b654ea1910@mail.gmail.com> References: <25E0702D-C3A3-4B6B-BC56-D1BC5C1347F5@cyberlifelabs.com> <0C1E63BE-0E2B-4ABC-952C-3EDC95CF8D8A@mac.com> <8A3D6CC2-5BB8-4A3F-9D72-C37383186C34@cyberlifelabs.com> <a969fbd10701251350w7da17c9ew3f3a21b654ea1910@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 25, 2007, at 13:50, Jeff Mohler wrote: > How about one large raid, and two partitions to serve each purpose? > > Being so limited in HW, youre either going to take a _huuuuuge_ > performance hit with only 2 disks per raid (unless Raid0), or an > availability hit with everything on one RAID set. I suppose availability is more important than performance. However reliability is even more important. My big concern with a single, large array is that should the array become corrupted for any reason, I'll lose both the live and the backup. Also, in that configuration, the backup becomes little more than transparent revision control. Another factor to consider (which I should have mentioned earlier) is that with the exception of any locally hosted databases, this is a NAS box. All data access will be via FastEthernet, and that's more of a bottleneck than any disks I have. -- Milo Hyson CyberLife Labs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EC5AC5CF-D8D2-4119-BACC-5950E87E95BB>