I am looking to build a mission-critical file server with raid 10 and need highest reliability. Now I know it doesn't get much more reliable than raid-10, considering speed/performance ratio, but I wanted to take it a step further. What do you guys think? Would I gain an additional level of reliability given laptop hard drives' higher tolerance for shocks and bumps? Also the higher density and lower power consumption would be a plus. I really would like your guys expert input on this. Thanks!
if you arer obsessed with laptop drives, get those to be released Laptop drives from Samsung which is entirely Flash (no magnetic heads/rotations) [8GB each isn't eaxctly a lot though]
By the way, does your controller supports RAID 1n(RAID 1, n-way)?
if you do, here is a suggestion:
go for 4x larger SATA2 drives (320GB/7200RPM) and do a RAID 1n. it is cheaper than 4x 160GB laptop drives in RAID 10, and more reliable too
Or if you have RAID 6 support go for RAID 6 instead of RAID 10 so Any 2 drives can fail as opposed to specific 2 drives in RAID 10 (first drive of the both mirror fails and your RAID 10 is toast)
Hmm...good point. I hadn't thought about losing TWO drives, and that would kill any raid 10 setup.
I am actually going to buy an external card once I decide on which solution to go with and throw it in an old p3 system that is currently sitting in the corner collecting dust. But I guess I'm behind the times. I have no idea what raid 1n is, so I'll have to do some research.
And yes, I do like the solid-state discs, but it will be some time before the capacity is there to really make them feasible.
But hey, great suggestions. I just wish I could get more of them. Maybe I posted in the wrong place? LOL! 8O :wink:
Oh, by the way, if losing ONE drive is the only concern (if they are supposed to notify you about failing one already, the second one failing immediately before you have a replacement is... not very likely) it may be cheaper to do a RAID 5 given your controller supports it (3 drives instead of 4)