Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

It all boils down to BUDGET. Justifying the cost vs benefit ratio. For
database environments, RAID 10 is recommended (but not easily "budget"
justifiable if there is such a term)
--
MCP MCDBA MCAD MCSD MCT MCTS MCITP:DBA
"Helping people grow and develop their full potential as God has plan for
them"


"kj" wrote:

Unfortunately, that's where those cruddy Raid cards really bite. Raid5
writes can be plain awful with regards to performance. Using Raid 1, there's
no on the fly calculations. With 4 drives and performance demands, I start
thinking raid 10 (with a decent Raid card) especially for those Database
(SQL, Exchange) environments. Still loosing 50% of the space, but gaining
some ground with the extra spindles and no ECC calcs.

--
/kj
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23fVHi1lEHHA.1748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
costwise RAID5 probably works out better, if you compare apples to apples.

Distinction. Cheap shirty onboard or plugin RAID1 only card with no smarts
vs a decent RAID card.

I look after two systems I inherited from elsewhere (so I'm not
responsible for the config) both use Intel 'Server' motherboards, slightly
different models, with onboard SATA RAID. The RAID bios and software is
_useless_, it gives little or no information about the array. Both systems
have had drive errors at different times, both times taking the system
down. In the most recent case the array management decided to write the
damaged disk over the top of the good one. There is no way to query these
controllers as to drive faults, they do not log any such information. The
mobo's do not support hotspare, no connector for it.

I have never seen such behaviour from decent RAID systems (PERC/Megaraid,
LSI, Adaptec).

So, if you're buying a decent card it is probably both RAID1 and RAID5
capable. The difference is the cost of drives.

If total capacity = xGB and yGB is half this figure.

RAID1, 2 drives of xGB capacity.
RAID5, 3 drives of yGB.
Depending on capacity you may find that 3 drives of half the capacity are
less expensive that the 2.

Throw a hotspare into the mix (ALL RAID should have hotspare) and you're
talking the cost of 3 xGB drives vs the cost of 4 at half capacity.

"JBr" <jbarber@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:euDDW0iEHHA.1196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you think Raid 1 is good enough for a small office of 8 users using
primarily file and print sharing along with exchange on SBS2K3 Standard?

I thought about using SATA drives with Raid1. I don't have 5,000+ to
spend on a Raid 5 server.


Thanks






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
    ... In a perfect world I would go SAS but as COST is a big player in this I will ... drives and with a 5 Year Mfg warrenty I hope that this will do the job. ... designed to run 24/7 in a RAID environment. ... Many lower cost SATA drives in a RAID array ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: [OT] GRAAAAAAAAAHHHH! HULK SMASH STUPID COMPUTER!! >_<#
    ... drive bay for the SATA drives and fan cool them. ... striped RAID. ... If you get the vendor to build the system for you, ... >pre-built system is a fraction of the total cost, ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5
    ... models, with onboard SATA RAID. ... if you're buying a decent card it is probably both RAID1 and RAID5 ... The difference is the cost of drives. ... 2 drives of xGB capacity. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SATA controllers
    ... You want more than 4 disks for RAID6. ... RAID6 uses 2 parity drives; this means you get the capacity of ... RAID levels 0+1 and 10 use simple mirroring and striping, ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5
    ... But how much more budget do you need over Raid 5 and a hot spare drive? ... With 4 drives and performance demands, ... if you're buying a decent card it is probably both RAID1 and RAID5 ... 2 drives of xGB capacity. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)