Re: RAID 1 versus RAID 5
From: Kevin Weilbacher (kweilbacMVP_at_gte.net)
Date: 12/02/04
- Next message: Aaron: "Re: AIT drive question"
- Previous message: Kevin Weilbacher: "Re: SBS2003 Inbound faxes to a doc library"
- In reply to: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]: "Re: RAID 1 versus RAID 5"
- Next in thread: Joshua Bolton: "Re: RAID 1 versus RAID 5"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:11:52 -0500
You are correct. In my original post I did indicate that I always use
hardware Raid. I should have re-emphasized that in my last post. Good
followup!
-- Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long" "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message news:eKNe2HG2EHA.2572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > What you have to keep in mind Kev is that articles which suggest your > root/boot partitions cannot be _software_ RAID5 are correct. > > The RAID array must be available to the boot process. If it's _hardware_ > RAID5 you're OK. > > "Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message > news:et6g0%23F2EHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> Reply to Fred - >> your points are well taken and should be considered. I was simply >> addressing the fact that posts and articles that say that you CANNOT >> have your system partition on a Raid-5 disk are incorrect. >> >> -- >> Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] >> "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long" >> >> >> "Fred Blum" <h.f.blum@marketconnectnospam.nl> wrote in message >> news:%23T4XKiE2EHA.1192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> had not thought of that and you're right. My RIAD controller doesn't >>> allow a dynamic resizing on W2K. >>> IMHO opinion this thread question/answer should be in the FAQ. >>> >>> Fred >>> >>> "Joshua Bolton" <JoshuaBolton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in >>> message news:5AC99C16-73A5-4B52-98B6-113D9E26E73D@microsoft.com... >>>> Kevin I would point out that this configuration precludes any disk >>>> space >>>> being added to your system. This is why the standard has been mirror >>>> [raid1] >>>> the OS and stripe [raid 5/0+1/10] the data. >>>> >>>> Here is the reason why. It is common to need to add disk space to the >>>> data >>>> partition/drive. Most raid controllers don't allow dynamic upgrades in >>>> the >>>> raid array. So to add more disk space with your present configuration >>>> you >>>> have to wipe the existing array and recreate the raid5 array with the >>>> additional disk so you have more space. This usually means you have to >>>> repartition the way you want, reinstall the OS and backup software and >>>> restore from a backup. A long painful process. >>>> >>>> Lets say you have a raid controller that can add the disk to the array >>>> dynamicly. Great. Now you have system, apps and data partitions. How >>>> are >>>> you going to add the "unallocated space" to the data partition? You >>>> only >>>> have two options. The best being buy a server version of Partition >>>> Magic and >>>> use it to add the space to data. Or create a volume set between the >>>> data >>>> partition and the unallocated space [very bad choice since I have seen >>>> chkdsk >>>> /f destroy a volume set]. >>>> >>>> Now if you had mirrored the OS and stripped the data [in your case apps >>>> and >>>> data] it is a simple matter of backup apps and data, reinit the array >>>> with >>>> the added disk, use disk manager to partition as you desire and format >>>> the >>>> partitions. Then restore from backup. I have done this in 4 hours on >>>> a Sat. >>>> [depending on how long it took to init the array and restore data]. >>>> >>>> Lets say you wanted to make the OS drive space larger. You can't >>>> mirror to >>>> a larger drive. But you can break the mirror, use ghost to ghost from >>>> small >>>> driver to larger and then with another larger drive in the system >>>> mirror the >>>> two. Again a fairly straight forward operation which you can not do if >>>> you >>>> have all three partitions on a single raid5 array. This is a two hour >>>> or >>>> less operation. >>>> >>>> Just something to think about. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Kevin Weilbacher" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fred, I know way back when it was recommended not to use raid-5 for >>>>> your >>>>> system partition. But I don't believe that is applicable any longer. I >>>>> know >>>>> I use hardware Raid-5 for all my SBS servers without any problems. I >>>>> take my >>>>> 3 or 4 drives, set them up in Raid-5, and partition them into 3 >>>>> sections: >>>>> system, apps, data. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
- Next message: Aaron: "Re: AIT drive question"
- Previous message: Kevin Weilbacher: "Re: SBS2003 Inbound faxes to a doc library"
- In reply to: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]: "Re: RAID 1 versus RAID 5"
- Next in thread: Joshua Bolton: "Re: RAID 1 versus RAID 5"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
