Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Kimsufi 3 disks vs 2 disks (RAID)
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Kimsufi 3 disks vs 2 disks (RAID)

Hi,

On a Kimsufi server with 3 x 480 GB SSD, is it possible to set up a RAID 5, and if so, will the available space be roughly 900 GB or am I saying BS?

In that case, from a disk point of view, isn't it better to have 3 x 480 GB in RAID 5 than a 2 x 960 GB in RAID 1 ?

Thank you,

Comments

  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Patron Provider

    Thanked by 1SteveMC
  • tentortentor Member, Patron Provider
    edited December 2023

    @SteveMC said: In that case, from a disk point of view, isn't it better to have 3 x 480 GB in RAID 5 than a 2 x 960 GB in RAID 1 ?

    960GB drives have higher TBW and generally RAID1 is better due to being less computationally harder (if we are talking about software RAID)

    When having more drives, RAID1 is much more reliable, however RAID5 has higher writing performance and more storage is available.

    Only you decide what is actually better for your case.

    Thanked by 1SteveMC
  • SteveMCSteveMC Member
    edited December 2023

    Thank you @FlorinMarian and @tentor, this confirms what I was thinking.

    Thanked by 1FlorinMarian
  • jon617jon617 Veteran
    edited December 2023

    @tentor said: RAID5 has higher writing performance

    Well, sometimes.

    On a 3-disk system, I would provision both ways, run I/O tests, and see whether I prefer RAID-1 or a RAID-5. The parity computations during writes can negate the benefit multi-disk writing. Not sure about your requirements, but if you're not compiling/building code or something that benefits from fast I/O, then RAID-5 would be my recommendation to get more space and good fault tolerance.

    One more option is RAID-1 across 3 drives. A little known option and big waste of space, but extra redundancy.

    Personally, I would always pick a RAID-1 or RAID-10 setup over a RAID-5 or RAID-6. I want the best I/O.

    Thanked by 1SteveMC
  • @jon617 said: One more option is RAID-1 across 3 drives. A little known option and big waste of space, but extra redundancy.

    Yes, this is what I've been doing so far, because I didn't know what to do of a third drives :blush:

  • CrabCrab Member
    edited December 2023

    Well in both cases you can only lose one drive, so there's no extra redundancy with RAID5. The only thing it gives is lessens the probability of having an issue with the setup. Like it was mentioned before 960GB drives have better durability, so my Kimsufi choice would be RAID1 hands down.

    Thanked by 1SteveMC
  • Thank you @Crab for sharing your opinion.

  • raid5 is economical.
    However, there is a penalty for write speeds, not for reads. So it totally depends on what you want to get out of it.

    If there is no difference in price, raid1's 960G should be more balanced in every way.

    Thanked by 1SteveMC
  • If you want RAID 5 to be as safe as RAID 1 in case of power failure, you have to pay a fairly significant write penalty by enabling PPL

    For a RAID 5 on SSDs in a datacenter, I'd take the risk and go with no PPL or bitmap

    Thanked by 1SteveMC
  • Thank you @danblaze and @darkimmortal for your comments.

Sign In or Register to comment.