RAID 10 Question

R

Ryan45

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
209
I got a quick question, can you run RAID 10 with 10 drives? We had a discussion about this at work.
 
8 or 12 I could see working easily, but with 10 drives I think the 5th one on each side would be a hot spare.
 
I don't see why not... it's 0 + 1, so two groups in RAID 1 of 5 drives in RAID 0.
 
I don't know why some people want to run RAID10, you lose more than half of the drive space. 20TB (10x2TB) only gives you 8TB after RAID10. I would prefer a RAID6 setup on 10 drives.
 
I have seen too many rebuilds fail on raid10 because the one drive it can read from gets errors during the rebuild. I would very high suggest raid6 over raid10 for data integrity if you have more than 8 disks (I have even seen 8 disk raid10 arrays fail or just never be able to rebuild).

Raid6 is better for data integrity and you get more storage out of it. The only time raid10 performs better (with a good controller) is with random writes that are smaller than the stripe size.

And I have seen a raid10 system with 16 drives before at work (not my decision to go that route though).
 
theinv said:
I don't know why some people want to run RAID10, you lose more than half of the drive space. 20TB (10x2TB) only gives you 8TB after RAID10. I would prefer a RAID6 setup on 10 drives.
Click to expand...

i'm inclined to agree on this particular case. if you are willing to jump through hoops to get a large file server like that, it would probably be better to raid6 that kind of investment. of course, this does mean spending a hefty sum on the raid controller, though. the only time i'd see raid10 being ideal in this case is if it were a webserver and you were taking advantage of the extra read performance offered from raid1, etc
 
SinShiva said:
i'm inclined to agree on this particular case. if you are willing to jump through hoops to get a large file server like that, it would probably be better to raid6 that kind of investment. of course, this does mean spending a hefty sum on the raid controller, though. the only time i'd see raid10 being ideal in this case is if it were a webserver and you were taking advantage of the extra read performance offered from raid1, etc
Click to expand...

Actually I know a lot of raid controllers that don't read from all the drives (only half) when being ran in raid10 which is why raid6 will even offer better read performance than raid10 on some cards.

However, in a web-server environment more than sequential speed the amount of reads/writes it can do a sec (or seeks/sec) is what is most important due to typically the randomness of the requests and when dealing strictly with reads raid6 is gonna be the same as raid10 (that is reading from all drives) or raid0 even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top