Howdy, Stranger!

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


Raid 10: 8x 7.2k or 4x 15k?
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.

Raid 10: 8x 7.2k or 4x 15k?

JacobHJacobH Member
edited March 2013 in General

Hi,

Which would, in general, perform better 8x 7.2k RPM disks vs 4x 15k disks both in Raid 10? Is there any real gain in terms of redundancy when choosing the 8 disks?

Comments

  • wow that is a good question.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Well on redundancy I can say that 8x has a benefit over 4x. More room for failure, less urgency in a failure.

  • @jarland said: Well on redundancy I can say that 8x has a benefit over 4x. More room for failure, less urgency in a failure.

    But you can still be unlucky and have two mirrored drives fail which would "destroy" the array right?

  • Each mirror can have a drive failure. So if you're lucky, in a 8-drive RAID10 array, you could have a 4-drive failure and still retain data, as long as every failure was in a different mirror.

    I would say that 8x 7.2k would be better. More spindles will win over spinning the drives faster.

  • For single threaded IOPS, 4 x 15K will be better. For multi threaded IOPS 8 x 7.2K will be better.

  • necsnecs Member

    For VPS hosting 8 x 7.2 for application based stuff 4 x 15k

  • @necs said: For VPS hosting 8 x 7.2 for application based stuff 4 x 15k

    Exactly, it depends on what you're doing, what hardware you need. Without a scenario form the OP, we can't make a proper recommendation without purely speculating.

  • JacobHJacobH Member
    edited March 2013

    For shared webhosting with cPanel, there'll be quite a few people on it, mainly running Wordpress or similar CMS'es / e-commerce applications on it.

  • necsnecs Member

    Then 4 x 15k will give you better read access times I would think under load.

    The other option which would beat both for this sort of thing would be 4 x 7.2 - SSD cached.

  • dedicadosdedicados Member
    edited March 2013

    can you draw, how can be the 8 disk raid10 ??

  • @dedicados said: can you draw, how can be the 8 disk raid10 ??

    Strip 0 = Disk 0/1/2/3
    Strip 1 = Disk 4/5/6/7

    Strip 1 is a mirror of strip 1?

  • Good raid card and 8 x good 7200 will give a lot more amazing results than only 4 hard drives server.

  • JacobHJacobH Member
    edited March 2013

    @dedicados said: can you draw, how can be the 8 disk raid10 ??

    Have a look on this http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5ryOgMntiwg/UNlFlfUFk_I/AAAAAAAABXM/XU41IlDEvns/s1600/220px-RAID_10.png

    (cant get image emedding to work for some reason)

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @darkconz said: Strip 0 = Disk 0/1/2/3

    Strip 1 = Disk 4/5/6/7

    Strip 1 is a mirror of strip 1?

    No that's raid 0+1. Two RAID-0 stripes that are mirrored.

    RAID 0+1:

    Disk 1,2,3,4 -> stripe 1
    Disk 5, 6,7,8 -> stripe 2
    Volume: mirror of stripe 1 and 2

    Raid 10 (1+0) is:

    Disk 1 <- mirror -> Disk 5
    Disk 2 <- mirror -> Disk 6
    Disk 3 <- mirror -> Disk 7
    Disk 4 <- mirror -> Disk 8
    Volume: Stripe across the four mirrors.

  • @raindog308 said: No that's raid 0+1. Two RAID-0 stripes that are mirrored.

    Thanks for the correction, I realized I posted 0+1 as well haha.

  • thanks for the info =D

  • Is there any other raid type which gives more data security and upto how much disk falure does it support?
    -From a non technical guy..

  • @Mikeln said: Is there any other raid type which gives more data security and upto how much disk falure does it support?

    -From a non technical guy..

    RAID 0+1 with two different drives in stripe, then have as many mirrors of these drives as you want

  • @Mikeln Sure: if you have 16 disks, RAID 66

  • O.o Thanks guys :)

  • would be nice raid 11, múltiple mirrors, but with fast speed

  • @necs said: Then 4 x 15k will give you better read access times I would think under load.

    The other option which would beat both for this sort of thing would be 4 x 7.2 - SSD cached.

    How about 2x SSDs in raid 1 then? Would that be even better for shared web hosting?

Sign In or Register to comment.