RAID Link Blast
-
Your welcome. I found a site a couple years ago with an IOPS calculator per RAID type.
-
Just added the RAID 100 link to the list.
-
@technobabble said:
Your welcome. I found a site a couple years ago with an IOPS calculator per RAID type.
Here is the IOPS calculator I was talking about.
-
@technobabble said:
@technobabble said:
Your welcome. I found a site a couple years ago with an IOPS calculator per RAID type.
Here is the IOPS calculator I was talking about.
That's the one that I often use.
-
Do SMB people still have RAID arguments? I just figured everyone was RAID 10 now.
I had a quote for a new ERP system last week and in the vendor proposal under recommendations for SQL server they've written "at least 300Gb of disk space in RAID 5". I was bit WTF, haven't we moved on from specifying RAID levels?
This is an ERP vendor, although they do IT support as well. I've no idea where they came up with the 300Gb figure from either. Disks are so cheap these days and you can get 600GB SFF disks so lack of storage seems unlikely to be a problem in a typical SMB.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Do SMB people still have RAID arguments? I just figured everyone was RAID 10 now.
Every few hours. RAID 6 still plays a huge role in SMB needs too. Far under 50%, but way more than 1%. I'd guess somewhere around 15-20% but that's scientific at all. RAID 10 and RAID 6 make up the vast majority of all SMB storage recommendations, though (assuming that RAID 1 is a subset of RAID 10 and RAID 100 is a super set that we ignore.)
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I had a quote for a new ERP system last week and in the vendor proposal under recommendations for SQL server they've written "at least 300Gb of disk space in RAID 5". I was bit WTF, haven't we moved on from specifying RAID levels?
Especially from specifying the worst possible RAID level. Even in the 1990s RAID 5 was a "compromise" level. It should never be specified as a requirement, only possibly a minimum. In this case, the wording is confusing. Maybe they meant RAID 5 (or better) which is okay potentially. But requiring RAID 5 period, is bad. All depends on how they meant it to read.
-
Added a new reference on RAID Write Penalties today.
http://theithollow.com/2012/03/understanding-raid-penalty/ -
@scottalanmiller said:
Added a new reference on RAID Write Penalties today.
http://theithollow.com/2012/03/understanding-raid-penalty/Thanks for that. I will use that tomorrow in fact.
-
Added Practical RAID Performance to the list.
-
Added "Practical RAID Decision Making"
-
Updating this thread with this new mini-article:
http://mangolassi.it/topic/5637/growing-a-raid-array-what-you-need-to-know
-
-
-
Added this reference for the NetApp RAID-DP System to the list: http://www.netapp.com/us/media/tr-3298.pdf
-
-
Two new ZDNet Robin Harris sources added today including: http://www.zdnet.com/article/has-raid5-stopped-working
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Two new ZDNet Robin Harris sources added today including: http://www.zdnet.com/article/has-raid5-stopped-working
Geezz.. could that be any more muddled?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Two new ZDNet Robin Harris sources added today including: http://www.zdnet.com/article/has-raid5-stopped-working
Geezz.. could that be any more muddled?
All the muddling was sarcasm. He's pointing out just how dramatically it stopped working.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Two new ZDNet Robin Harris sources added today including: http://www.zdnet.com/article/has-raid5-stopped-working
Geezz.. could that be any more muddled?
All the muddling was sarcasm. He's pointing out just how dramatically it stopped working.
But then he goes on to say that he still uses it, sure he mentions that you need to have two copies of the data, but that just muddies the water and stupid people will use the article to allow them to continue to use it in ways the author doesn't intend - like production in an office.
