Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+Raid\s+1\s+vs\s+Raid\s+5\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Dana Holland <dana.holland AT NAVARROCOLLEGE DOT EDU>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:23:11 -0500
Does anyone have opinions about setting up storage pools as Raid 1 as opposed to Raid 5? We have a very limited amount of disk space at the moment and don't know when we'll get approval to buy more.
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00083.html (12,303 bytes)

2. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Larry Clark <lclark01 AT NYCAP.RR DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:33:00 -0400
Raid-5 isn't hard to recover. Based on the type of storage you have it is usually just a replacement of a disk and auto rebuild. The issue with Raid-5, versus Raid-1 or Raid-10 is performance, but gi
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00084.html (13,313 bytes)

3. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT U.WASHINGTON DOT EDU>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:32:57 -0700
Do you have tape in your primary storage hierarchy? If so, remember that even if part of your disk pool fails, you only lose access to the data that are on the failed volumes. You can then regenerate
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00085.html (13,239 bytes)

4. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: John Underdown <JohnUnderdown AT SYNOVUS DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:03:35 -0400
i use raid 5 for all my storage pools. i stripe the arrays across as many spindles as possible, for our hardware that is 15 1TB drives with the 16th used as a hot spare. i use a 256kb stripe size and
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00086.html (14,579 bytes)

5. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Lipp <kellyjlipp AT YAHOO DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:24:27 -0600
Conserve space: don't RAID... Kelly J. Lipp O: 719-531-5574 C: 719-238-5239 kellyjlipp AT yahoo DOT com Do you have tape in your primary storage hierarchy? If so, remember that even if part of your d
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00087.html (13,999 bytes)

6. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: "Ochs, Duane" <Duane.Ochs AT QG DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:37:04 -0500
I use raid-5 for all diskpools. Although I don't agree with no raid, in some instances it is less of an issue than others. A few of my pools use caching for some of our more popular servers that get
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00088.html (15,010 bytes)

7. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: "J. Pohlmann" <jpohlmann AT SHAW DOT CA>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:03:32 -0700
Another comment - RAID 5 gives you striping, so does RAID 0. Striping is what gives you disk performance so that you can "feed" multiple tape drives at a reasonable speed. Example a TSM server with 4
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00091.html (15,979 bytes)

8. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Orville Lantto <olantto AT EMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:28:57 -0400
The biggest factor in using RAID 5, and to a lessor extent RAID 0, is to get the OS tuning and disk system tuning right. TSM writes 256 kB blocks for storage pools. RAID 5 will work reasonably well i
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00095.html (16,820 bytes)

9. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Roger Deschner <rogerd AT UIC DOT EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:36:34 -0500
RAID5 is fine. But my strategy for handling disk failures is a bit radical. I developed it a while back when I inherited a bunch of rather unreliable 36gb disks, which I only dared to run as RAID1. S
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00096.html (20,603 bytes)

10. Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5 (score: 1)
Author: Dana Holland <dana.holland AT NAVARROCOLLEGE DOT EDU>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:00:33 -0500
After last night I don't think going with no raid will be an option at all. I've been trying to get TSM running for the last 3 weeks, and have had 3 drive failures in my SAN. But I have to admit, our
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-08/msg00119.html (22,696 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu