Megaraid with brakes on?
peter at infostreet.com
Thu Jan 4 00:17:19 CST 2007
Martin Sarsale wrote:
> We're changing servers (not related to this issue) and we'll build a
> RAID10 in the new ones. What do you think it's better, assuming we
> want to have all the disks in a RAID?
> Hardware RAID0 and Software RAID1
> Software RAID0 and Hardware RAID1
> or Hardware RAID10 ?
> thanks a lot!
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but essentially, what was originally
was (in fact) hardware raid 1 and software concatenation, which wouldn't
be a combination of anything including raid 0, including raid 10, which
striping data across multiple drives, and probably wouldn't gain you any
The simplest solution would probably be something like using raid 1 on
and just mounting actual separate filesystems kind of like
But that would require your application being aware of multiple
filesystems to find this
data on, which may introduce a lot of extra complexity you don't need,
which is where
the whole raid one and concatenate (don't stripe) the raid 1 pairs comes
Come to think of it, this kind of sounds like what I should be doing for
/Maildir/ as well, which makes a lot more sense than the raid 10 it's
configured as. Splitting tiny file writes across a lot more spindles
isn't going to
help either of us.
The next best alternative to running that, would probably be raid 10, I
I don't see the benefit for tons of tiny files, as previously pointed out.
Oh yeah, if anyone has any great ideas on my /Maildir/ filesystem, do
tell. I'm tempted
to run Reiser, but kind of scared of it's functionality, or longevity.
Peter Serwe <peter at infostreet dot com>
"The only true sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing and auto racing." -Earnest Hemingway
"Because everything else requires only one ball." -Unknown
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge