Three Terabyte

[Brent Wiese]

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 27-Mar-2003, Francisco J Reyes wrote message "Re: Three 
> Terabyte" 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Highly recommend you go with Raid 10 and not 5.
> 
> 
> I 2nd that.  Raid 5 offers very very POOR performance.  While 
> it sucks up the most diskspace, Raid 10 is maximum 
> performance and great fault tolerance.  For an i/o intensive 
> service like a mail server or something, raid 5 will 
> eventually cause your server to get crushed over time as the 
> number of users increases.  The you're forced to convert to 
> raid 10.  We learnt this the hard way.  ;)
> 

Normally, I'd also agree with this. However, a friend of mine built a NAS
using the 3ware card and 11 200gb WD drives in a RAID5 config and can
sustain 85mbit/s *write* (the test was several hours long). I suspect it
would do even more with a gig-E card.

Of course, that test would be fairly meaningless when you're doing something
like a mail spool, but it proves the application should drive the method.

Brent