ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5

2010-08-09 12:04:29
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5
From: John Underdown <JohnUnderdown AT SYNOVUS DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
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 align the OS partition at a 512 
sector offset. rebuild time is about 6 hours for the 15 drive 14TB array, at 
which time there's a slight slow down in I/O. i have 150TB setup this way.

john
 
>>> Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT U.WASHINGTON DOT EDU> 8/9/2010 11:32 AM >>> 
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 that data by
either running another backup from the nodes that had backed up to that
volume (if the backup to the copy pool hasn't happened yet) or from the
copy pool. New backups can continue against the disk pool volumes that
are still available, or can be cut through directly to tape if the
entire pool is unavailable.

On 08/09/10 08:23, Dana Holland wrote:
> 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. At the time
> we first started planning to implement TSM, we purchased what we thought
> would be plenty of storage. But, that was 4 years ago - and our usage
> has grown. Now, if I choose Raid 1, I barely have enough to create a
> primary and copy storage pool for one of our servers. And that isn't
> allowing for any growth at all. And I'm not sure how much additional
> space incremental backups would take. I know Raid 5 would give me more
> storage space, but I've also read that it's harder to recover from if
> there's a disk failure (read this on a TSM site somewhere). So, I'm
> wondering what some of you are using?
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5352 (20100809) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com

--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine



-----------------------------------------
NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the person or
entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential,
proprietary, and/or privileged material. Unless you are the
intended addressee, any review, reliance, dissemination,
distribution, copying or use whatsoever of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please reply
immediately and delete the material from all computers. Email sent
through the Internet is not secure. Do not use email to send us
confidential information such as credit card numbers, PIN numbers,
passwords, Social Security Numbers, Account numbers, or other
important and confidential information.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>