Re: RAID 10
- From: "Al Williams" <donotreplydirect@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:54:50 -0700
RAID10 seems like overkill to me. It wastes a lot more space with overhead
and is only faster if your SCSI controllers has enough channels to keep up
with all drives in parallel. It is usually reserved to database servers
that need high speed IO response. You also may want to check whether the
array can be expanded by adding a new drive later *without* reformatting the
whole thing. My RAID5 array can be expanded so if I ever need more space I
just add a drive.
As far as partitions I usually have:
20 GB OS
Database (for exchange & SQL DB's)
Application (for install apps, etc.)
Data (for user data)
Logs (for pagefile, exchange logs, etc.)
A RAID5 array can be used for all of this although some say RAID1 should be
used on OS & Log drives.
--
Allan Williams
"Craig Kalugin" <CraigKalugin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:69FD4BF8-5B41-441B-ABA4-7A8C5E1DB938@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> We have a new Dell Server with (4) 73GB SCSI Drives. I have configured
> them
> as a RAID10. Is this a good idea. Also, what would a good partition scheme
> be
> for this configuration. This will be a SBS2003 install Premium.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: How to create a local user account on SBS2003
- Next by Date: Re: Backup Software
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID 10
- Next by thread: reject/block e-mails to invalid users on exchange?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
