Originally posted by stek
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: RAID6 Vs RAID5 + HotSpare?
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "RAID6 Vs RAID5 + HotSpare?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by wxman View PostBut what if any advantages are there running RAID6 over a RAID5 + hot spare?
RAID5 seems to gives better R/W throughput over RAID6 and the hotspare means that the array needs to fail three disks before it falls over (assuming that the hot spare takes over)
You might also want to think about how performance degrades after a drive failure & during the subsequent rebuild.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wxman View PostBut what if any advantages are there running RAID6 over a RAID5 + hot spare?
I think there are some advantages, personally I was attracted to the fact that on 2U box with 4 disks put into RAID6 it was ok for us to lose 2 of them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostRAID6 (apparently) involves much heavier CPU calculations than previous RAIDs, which means a lot of early cards that kind of supported it did not have enough CPU power to handle calculations with adequate speed.
Lesson: buy a card known to be able to handle RAID6 calculations...
HTH
RAID5 seems to gives better R/W throughput over RAID6 and the hotspare means that the array needs to fail three disks before it falls over (assuming that the hot spare takes over)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wxman View PostLesson learned – Pick RAID5 + hot spare over RAID6
Lesson: buy a card known to be able to handle RAID6 calculations...
HTHLast edited by AtW; 3 February 2010, 00:01.
Leave a comment:
-
Just a small update on this….
Dell replaced the backplane to the disk array (was proven to be faulty) and now the RAID array seems to be performing OK.
I did some benchmark testing (passmark) on the array and found RAID6 to be slower on both read and write when compared to RAID5
Array now configured as RAID5 + 1 hotspare (6 disks in total) – performance is now OK.
272 Mb/s Read
309 Mb/s Write
The server is the main clients file and print server replacing an old IBM server which benchmarks at a very poor (RAID5)
60 Mb/s read
72 MB/s write
Lesson learned – Pick RAID5 + hot spare over RAID6
Leave a comment:
-
Can you move the RAID card to a different bus (slot) inside the server or are there no others choices ? and then re-test ? - not all buses have the same internal bandwidth in some servers.
Generally you should enable the Read Ahead caching, but the performance resulting from this is very dependent on the profile of the data, i.e are the files typically large or small, are they stored sequentially on the disk ? or very randomly ?
What type of data are you using for testing ? is this 'live' data from the original file server or is it test data that you have generated ?
Also are there any other settings on in the RAID card BIOS which may have an effect when fine tuning performance ?
Try to keep the data on the drives defragmented if possible in all cases.
A couple of other points...
I would stick with RAID 5, the read performance under optimal conditions should be better than RAID 1. RAID 1 is obviously very wastefull in terms of storage capacity.
Unless you really need the resilience provided by two parity disks stick with RAID 5. With RAID 6 you are increasing the overhead of having to write parity information to two disks, therefore slight slowing write performance.Last edited by omega; 1 February 2010, 10:58.
Leave a comment:
-
SATA storage is not the same - if you use "consumer" level SATA HDDs then they are often intentionally crippled by manufacturers to make "enterprise" users buy into their much more expensive "enterprise" disks: crippling is lack of quick timeout to recover from bad sectors, this may cause RAID card to think whole disk dropped out.
Leave a comment:
-
And, in my experience in real life, only SCSI or FC-AL cuts the mustard in the enterprise, we sold some SATA storage to Uni of Wales in Aberystwyth and it was totaltoolip, IMHO nothing beats the sound of local SCSI (or FC-AL!) battering the disk, while the OS doesn't even't notice....
Leave a comment:
-
SSDs are not good if you write a lot on them - they are perfect however for mainly read only databases.
Leave a comment:
-
If you don't need masses of disk storage I'd look into SSD, particularly the Intel X25-E or OCZ Vertex drives (current market leaders performance wise afaik), especially if read performance is more important than write.
SSD access times and IOPS are untouchable by mechanical drives regardless of the raid config and also cuts out all the ballaches associated with RAID, though you can RAID SSDs too if you want to go extreme.
Many other benefits of SSD over mechanical too: lower power usage (every watt counts in a rackmount server), cooler, silent (loving the OCZ Vertex in my PC ), more reliable (no moving parts), smaller (2.5").
Only downside at the moment is lack of storage capacity and price per GB. They (or a similar solid state alternative) are the future, but why wait.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/12/myspace-ssd
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wxman View Poststek
Problem I have is that this server is business critical - therefore I went for an RAID 5 + hot spare or even RAID6 array - both gave duff performance.
However all the above is a mute point - disk 3 has failed in the array AGAIN RIGHT NOW
FYI Dell replaced disk 3 which went suspect today under warrently.
As of 22:15 Friday night Dell UK warrenty support is not "Open" again until Monday 09:00am WTF
Clients Del Poweredge server R610 (£4K in price) is therefore DOA and my only recomandation to the client is to postpone this weekends server install until the hardware is proven.
FYI Client has ALWAYS purchased IBM branded servers - But I recomended Dell at 2/3 the price of IAB as the first of many server refreshes. (I have 20+ servers to replace / virutal)
Client's I.T. muppets (if is is not IBM then it is not worth shagging attitude) are loving this
I might be biased but I'd always go Sun/IBM/HP for this sort of thing, I've seen Dell fall over spectacularly before, more with SAN's but still an über-fük....
Sun etc, really, one throat to choke, my mantra never let me down. Dell are for PC's and lappies...
And u can ring Sun Support 24/7...
Leave a comment:
-
stek
Problem I have is that this server is business critical - therefore I went for an RAID 5 + hot spare or even RAID6 array - both gave duff performance.
However all the above is a mute point - disk 3 has failed in the array AGAIN RIGHT NOW
FYI Dell replaced disk 3 which went suspect today under warrently.
As of 22:15 Friday night Dell UK warrenty support is not "Open" again until Monday 09:00am WTF
Clients Del Poweredge server R610 (£4K in price) is therefore DOA and my only recomandation to the client is to postpone this weekends server install until the hardware is proven.
FYI Client has ALWAYS purchased IBM branded servers - But I recomended Dell at 2/3 the price of IAB as the first of many server refreshes. (I have 20+ servers to replace / virutal)
Client's I.T. muppets (if is is not IBM then it is not worth shagging attitude) are loving this
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: