Well... I wasn't sure what the best choice was, given the circumstances. This isn't an array for production, just development or (more likely) testing. And the big thing is, I'm re-using existing equipment, and I had 8 300 GB 15K RPM drives, and no further replacements handy. One can probably get those drives if need be, but the City wouldn't likely pony up the cost. So I figured I'd use only 7 drives with one spare for RAID5. I could have gone RAID6 on eight drives for the same capacity, but when one drive fails I'll be back to RAID5 (sort of) anyway.
On 2011-05-19 Kevin McGregor wrote:I got around 20-30M/s or so on my RAID6 7200rpm 12TB 8-disk rebuild this
> I installed Ubuntu Server 10.04.2 LTS AMD64 on a HP ProLiant ML370 G3
> (4 x dual-core/hyperthreaded Xeon 2.66 GHz, 8 GB RAM) and I used the
> on-board SCSI controller to manage 8 x 300 GB 15K RPM SCSI drives in
> a software RAID 5 set up as a 7-drive array with 1 hot-spare drive.
> All drives are the exact same model with the same firmware version.
>
> It's currently rebuilding the array (because I just created the
> array) and /proc/mdstat is reporting "finish=165.7min
> speed=25856K/sec". Does that sound "right" in the sense that it's the
week. That was on an old Pentium-D but with a nifty zippy new 8-port
SATA card. Your speeds sound a touch slow, given the hardware. But
RAID5/6 does weird things behind the scenes.
Note, if you're doing 8 drives anyhow, why not RAID6? Its
survivability is much higher and its performance is surprisingly nearly
that of RAID5 (there's some graphs somewhere I was recently looking
at). The only downside is degraded performance sucks, but hopefully
you will never be in that state (long). I've personally had/seen 2
RAID5 failures and will never use anything except RAID6 now.
_______________________________________________
Roundtable mailing list
Roundtable@muug.mb.ca
http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable