Differences between version 8 and predecessor to the previous major change of RAID.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 8 | Last edited on Monday, February 21, 2005 5:03:57 pm | by PerryLorier | Revert |
| Older page: | version 5 | Last edited on Saturday, November 16, 2002 1:53:16 am | by MattPurvis | Revert |
@@ -10,11 +10,12 @@
!Advantages:
* No parity generation
* Easy to implement in software and hardware
* Cheap to implement
+
* Utilise full disk capacity, no space is wasted storing redundant pages
-http://www.raidarray.eu.com/raid0.html
+http://www.raidarray.eu.com/raid0.html or http://www.acnc.com/raid
.html
!Disadvantages
* If any disk fails, you lose all your data
* Not true [RAID]
@@ -98,7 +99,13 @@
!Disadvantages
* Expensive
* Lots of wasted disk space
-* If two disks on opposing arrays die, you loose
the entire array, where 1+0 would require two disks in the same position to die before you loose
the array which is far less probable.
+* If two disks on opposing arrays die, you lose
the entire array, where 1+0 would require two disks in the same position to die before you lose
the array which is far less probable.
http://www.raidarray.eu.com/raid0+1.html
+----
+One suggested way of calculating the Stripe size for RAID systems that are doing a lot of random I/O (machines that are serving multiple users, eg email, compute servers etc) is to figure out the maximum throughput you can get through your disks (including controllers, PCI bus bandwidth etc). Then plug it into this formula:
+ stripesize = throughput / (drives * RPM/60)
+then round down the stripesize to the nearest multiple of your filesystem cluster size (usually 4k).
+
+Suggestions for the improvement of the estimation of optimal stripe size is solicited.
