1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Need specifics on RAID 10

Discussion in 'Storage' started by vawrvawerawe, Mar 11, 2013.

  1. Geofrancis

    Geofrancis

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,041 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    153
    Location:
    SCOTLAND!
    I get mabe 40mb/s from cache to array thats Limited by the parity calculations But that's not usually a problem as the 1tb drive is more than large enough to dump any data I want to it. The array is not used for Modifying large data files but long term storage with some redundancy.

    Esxi and the operating systems run from a separate hard drive but I have ran them on the array without issue .
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  2. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,504 (5.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,947
    because this guy is a troll. :):):D:D:laugh::laugh::laugh::cry::cry:
    Aquinus says thanks.
  3. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,929 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,912
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Ah okay. 40MB/s is a little slow for my taste. My RAID-5 off of the X79 PCH gives me something like 140-160MB/s. It also rebuilds pretty fast.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  4. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,444 (10.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    With raid 0 on two first gen sata HDD's I get around low 100's but this is on a onboard marvel chip.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. Geofrancis

    Geofrancis

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,041 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    153
    Location:
    SCOTLAND!
    It's not as fast because the data is not striped.

    With raid 5 if you lose more than 2 disks you loose everything.
    If I lose 2 disks I only loose what's on the 2 disks all the rest of the files on the other 8 drives is intact because it keeps the files whole and on a single drive.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  6. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,701 (6.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,861
    If a RAID-5 array is setup properly a BBU is not necessary. Though for a server an expensive UPS is never a bad idea.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  7. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,390 (4.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,223
    i know that you know what you are talking about but it needs to be clarified. a lot of people confuse a raid controller card and a software raid controller card and simply a host card.

    there are massive speed and performance benefits of a raid on chip card over simply a software raid controller. so if you want raid 5 and you want it very fast and you want it to do fancy things like write-through caching calculations then you need a controller that has raid 5 on it with ram, etc.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  8. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,701 (6.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,861
    You are right to an extent, but wrong also. Now a days even the software cards can do write-through and give very decent speeds with RAID-5. The $45 card I have for example does write-through without a problem for example, and easily sustains 110-120MB/s transfers to and from it, which is enough to pretty much saturate a gigabit connection and hence enough for any server. Yes, it is still using the CPU to do the work unlike a true hardware card, but even in my dual-core Celeron server the CPU is barely bothered by the extra load. In fact when read/writing the CPU load barely breaks 5%, and my i7 in my main rig just laughs it off like the CPU load isn't even there. Yeah, if I wanted it faster for an array directly in the machine I was using, or had a 10 Gigabit network, I'd want a hardware RAID controller. You are right, there are massive performance gains to a hardware card. But for a home server that is storing data that doesn't need to be accessed at extremely fast speeds there is no point in a super expensive hardware RAID card, in fact even in most business there isn't a need for it unless they are doing something like video editing directly off the files server or something.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  9. Mindweaver

    Mindweaver Moderato®™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,143 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,650
    Location:
    Statesville, NC
    There again, I would not set up a RAID-5 with out a BBU, and I would still have a UPS as well. I wouldn't consider a RAID-5 as being setup properly with out a BBU. I'm not saying you are wrong newtekie1, I'm just stating how I would handle it.

    If you can't afford a BBU for your Hardware RAID-5 Controller card then you shouldn't be using a Hardware RAID-5 array and just go software.
    vawrvawerawe and Aquinus say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  10. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,701 (6.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,861
    A BBU is only required if you are using write-back cache, so no a BBU isn't not necessary. And even if you are using write-back, a properly configured inexpensive UPS is enough to keep you safe, you don't need a BBU for the RAID controller itself.

    However, yes, I would say if you can afford a true hardware RAID-5 controller and don't get the BBU, you're doing it wrong.
    vawrvawerawe and Mindweaver say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  11. Mindweaver

    Mindweaver Moderato®™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,143 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,650
    Location:
    Statesville, NC
    There again, I stated what I would do, and I never said it was necessary buddy. Why would anyone not want to use that cache? The performance is great. I think the gains out weigh the small extra cost.


    :toast:
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  12. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,701 (6.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,861
    Well, like I said, if you are putting it in a server on a Gigabit network the performance improvement is useless as even software cards using write-through are enough to saturate the network. So using the cache just adds a chance for data loss for no gain at all.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  13. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,390 (4.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,223
    the problem with software raid comes when running more than one virtual machine. performance comes to a crawl with all of that cross traffic. the best i could get with software raid running several VMs was 50 MB/s transfers with caching enabled.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  14. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,701 (6.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,861
    You're right, but that can bring even hardware controllers down to a crawl, it can be a problem with any hard drive setup simply because hard drives just aren't good with heavy random access loads. A good hardware controller with a large amount of RAM for cache definitely helps the situation though, since the RAM cache helps makes up for the shortcomings of the hard drives. But even some of the software controllers that allow you to use a SSD as a cache drive are a lot better with this type of load than they used to be.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  15. andrewsmc

    andrewsmc

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    977 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    84
    Location:
    Pikeville NC
    20 post later and OP has said NOTHING. rofl.
  16. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,444 (10.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    If you look at his thread record you would know why.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  17. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,390 (4.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,223
    The cards now come with NAND flash on them so you can ditch the BBU and don't have to bother with any sort of hybrid raid setup. those get expensive though.

    still provides for good conversation though.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  18. Mindweaver

    Mindweaver Moderato®™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,143 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,650
    Location:
    Statesville, NC
    I've got one comment to share with you.. Edit your posts, don't double post. I'm sure you have been told this multiple times.
    vawrvawerawe, Aquinus and brandonwh64 say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  19. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,929 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,912
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    ...and I would find that barely acceptable. When you're working on the RAID locally for things like VMs, you really want it to be quick.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  20. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,444 (10.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    But for a everyday PC it makes opening stuff like word, chrome, and other small apps that much better to deal with.
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  21. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    580 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31

    Ok what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I wasn't sure, I thought RAID 10 meant more stable, you have less of a chance of losing data. Data security is very important to me. We're talking years of data. Performance increase is not very important to me at all. Currently my main HDD with all primary applications is a 256GB Agility 4 SSD. Everything else is just storage. Yes I access these files, but normal hard drive speed is sufficient to access all my massive data. My SSD as primary drive is sufficient to store all my applications and is very fast, I love it.

    Given that performance increase is not important, but risk of data loss is the most important, do you still recommend RAID 5? Because the point of RAID 10 is data redundancy so as to significantly minimize the risk of catastrophic data loss due to hard drive failure.

    Cost is of course also important; I would of course look for the best deals. Currently my setup of just using multiple hard drives, is working out for me fine, especially since I use Shell Link Extension to make virtual folders located on other drives to give a "virtual storage increase" - "virtual" as not a technical term but rather as meaning simply, "you don't have to click into the other drives to access the data".

    Let me give an example of what I currently do:

    For my video collection (it's not really private so I can show you all a screenshot of the file structure), I put all the folders on a different drive, but added Junctions within the one drive, giving the illusion they are all in the same location. Hope you grasp what it is I'm showing you:

    [​IMG]

    As you see here, almost all the folders are Junction links, basically it means that if I move a file into the folder it copies it into the other drive. (a couple of the folders I haven't moved yet; that's why you don't see the chain link overlay on the folder icon on Alias and Motive).

    So it's working fine for me to have JBOD, only reason to have RAID is because it would simplify things a bit by having it all one huge drive instead of several drives. Is it even worth it to do RAID for my situation?

    Whoa, Flex-RAID from their website looks great, anyone have any comments or experience with this?

    sorry for the delay in response, I was asleep last night and woke up this morning and only just checked the thread again. Happy that there are so many useful responses.
  22. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644 (3.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ok cool though next time try to put it in the right section, man.
    brandonwh64 says thanks.
  23. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    580 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    hmmm, Storage forum is not the right place???

    [​IMG]


    ***24 hours in between bumping threads -staff***
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2013
  24. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,929 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,912
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Chevalr1c and Mindweaver say thanks.
  25. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    580 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    bump

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page