Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAID10 for HDDs in 2 different places - doable?

Tags:
  • NAS / RAID
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
March 28, 2014 6:09:29 AM

Hello all,

okay so I have a project from my virtualization class. One part of it is figuring out how to set up big capacity storage so that it can be both secure and easily accesible (NAS).

I was thinking, is it possible to use RAID10, take odd numbered HDDs disk1, disk3, disk5... and place them in one room, while keeping all the other HDDs in different place?

The idea of course is to have same data in both places, so that if small fire incident (or smth) in one of these rooms occurs, the data won't be lost (as odd numbered disks mirror even numbered ones). The rooms could be some 200-300m away from each other I guess: I imagine FTP 1gigabit cat6 cable. But then again, can it be all hooked up for raid10 like this?

PS. Again, it's a presentation, not a real life thing, so don't worry about the price and similair stuff too much.

More about : raid10 hdds places doable

a b G Storage
March 28, 2014 7:04:42 AM

Interesting idea you have but I don't think it would work out very well.

How large are we talking about? When I first read it I was thinking of physically secure while your thinking more like backing up. I guess both could be correct. I would assume the answer would lay with implementing RAID 5 or 6, with a real time backup done over LAN/WAN.
m
0
l
a c 98 G Storage
March 28, 2014 7:17:56 AM

No, it won't work. What you want to do, is set up raid 10 for hardware(drive) failure issues, and do regular backups, and keep the backups off-site in case of a fire.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b G Storage
March 28, 2014 7:20:23 AM

Why would you go RAID10 over 5 or 6? Won't that use more drives?
m
0
l
March 28, 2014 8:16:45 AM

ss202sl said:
No, it won't work. What you want to do, is set up raid 10 for hardware(drive) failure issues, and do regular backups, and keep the backups off-site in case of a fire.



Why won't? Are you sure? Please be more specific.

As for the raid5/6, for my idea they obviously won't work as it would be impossible to seperate the same data.

PS. someone asked the numbers, we are talking here about 3TBx120 (180TB "usable" space).
m
0
l
a b G Storage
March 28, 2014 8:24:49 AM

It won't work the way you described it because you can't get the drive cables that long. From the board/controller to a building meters away for only half the drives? "My" way would work much better. RAID5 or 6 the drives with a real time backup that happens over the network. A second copy that is away from the original data in the event of fire, etc. RAID5/6 for real time replacement. Fits the requirements with nothing special needed.
m
0
l
a c 98 G Storage
March 28, 2014 8:37:50 AM

There are data replication systems that do what you're wanting(synchronizing data across great distances). These basically take a drive (or SAN, NAS) in one building, and replicates it to a drive in another building(at a DR site). If anything happens at the primary site, you just fail-over to systems at the DR site. The replication can be real-time depending on how much bandwidth there is between the sites. This
m
0
l
a b G Storage
March 28, 2014 3:11:24 PM

You want to put one hundred and twenty 3Tb drives in a SINGLE RAID 10 array?
Lolwut

Besides the fact that an array of disks has to be physically connected to the same controller hardware or multi-controller system, you would need specialized FCoE/iSCSI SAN architecture with multiple RAID sets for that many drives of that capacity.
There are a huge number of factors to consider in a system like that and you're going to need help from the SAN manufacturer/system integrator(Equalogic/Compellant, VnXe, etc...)
m
0
l
!