Internal Storage is always better.
-
@ChrisL said in Internal Storage is always better.:
We just published a blog this morning on RAID arrays, fault tolerance, etc. For someone that isn't well versed in the data storage aspect, I thought it was a nice little insight into how it works.
Your link is broken (check the lowercase L in front of http, known bug)
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@ChrisL said in Internal Storage is always better.:
We just published a blog this morning on RAID arrays, fault tolerance, etc. For someone that isn't well versed in the data storage aspect, I thought it was a nice little insight into how it works.
Your link is broken (check the lowercase L in front of http, known bug)
FIXED. here's the link as well: http://www.colocationamerica.com/blog/what-is-raid-fault-tolerance
-
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm gonna guess the Raid 10
Double check those...
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=1213
md0, RAID10, speed=761The speed difference between md2 and md1 is purely internal vs DAS, and md0 is just slow drives (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm.)
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm gonna guess the Raid 10
Double check those...
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=1213
md0, RAID10, speed=761The speed difference between md2 and md1 is purely internal vs DAS, and md0 is just slow drives (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm.)
md0,speed=76109K/sec
md1,speed=12136K/sec
md2,speed=54044K/sec.So md1 is the slowest and md0 is the fastest.
-
@travisdh1 Maybe I'm reading it wrong from the size of the screengrab,
But I read md0 as 76109K/sec and md1 as 12136K/sec and md2 as 54044K/sec
Clearly md0 is faster.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm gonna guess the Raid 10
Double check those...
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=1213
md0, RAID10, speed=761The speed difference between md2 and md1 is purely internal vs DAS, and md0 is just slow drives (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm.)
DAS should not have a huge impact IMHO. It's still direct attached, there are just expanders (read: ~ "USB Hubs") in between.
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm gonna guess the Raid 10
Double check those...
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=1213
md0, RAID10, speed=761The speed difference between md2 and md1 is purely internal vs DAS, and md0 is just slow drives (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm.)
DAS should not have a huge impact IMHO. It's still direct attached, there are just expanders (read: ~ "USB Hubs") in between.
I'm not reading my own screen grab right, missing the line split
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm not reading my own screen grab right, missing the line split
exactly. It is:
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=12136
md0, RAID10, speed=76109 -
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm not reading my own screen grab right, missing the line split
exactly. It is:
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=12136
md0, RAID10, speed=76109So why is your md1 this slow?
-
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
You said you had 5400RPM drives? That would account for the slowness.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
The 6 disk RAID 10 should be 3 times faster, but I'm not sure about this. Don't know how up to date this http://wintelguy.com/raidperf2.pl is
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
The expanders are 4 drives each, and the RAID 10 is 6 drives of one of the two channels and the RAID1 is two drives on one.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
The expanders are 4 drives each, and the RAID 10 is 6 drives of one of the two channels and the RAID1 is two drives on one.
Ah ok
-
So this looks like an MD array, is this running on XenServer?
-
Also you've got approx 8TB of space there, correct?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Also you've got approx 8TB of space there, correct?
Yes.
