New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Raid10 or Raid6

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
hello to you all I really need a good advice. I will soon buy Areca ARC-1260 and 6x1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 hard drives so I can't decide to use RAID 10 or RAID 6. I want to boot OS from RAID and I will use Win 7 x64. I dont use computer for server just for games and fun. I want speed but security of data also
post #2 of 16
Little bit of google goes a long way. As from wikipedia.org
Quote:
A common myth (and one which serves to illustrate the mechanics of proper RAID implementation) is that in all deployments, RAID 10 is inherently better for relational databases than RAID 5, due to RAID 5's need to recalculate and redistribute parity data on a per-write basis. [2]

While this may have been a hurdle in past RAID 5 implementations, the task of parity recalculation and redistribution within modern Storage Area Network (SAN) appliances is performed as a back-end process transparent to the host, not as an in-line process which competes with existing I/O. (i.e. the RAID controller handles this as a housekeeping task to be performed during a particular spindle's idle timeslices, so as not to disrupt any pending I/O from the host.) The "write penalty" inherent to RAID 5 has been effectively masked since the late 1990s by a combination of improved controller design, larger amounts of cache, and faster hard disks.

In the vast majority of enterprise-level SAN hardware, any writes which are generated by the host are simply acknowledged immediately, and destaged to disk on the back end when the controller sees fit from an efficiency standpoint to do so. From the host's perspective, an individual write to a RAID 10 volume is no faster than an individual write to a RAID 5 volume; A difference between the two only becomes apparent when write cache at the SAN controller level is overwhelmed, and the SAN appliance must reject or gate further write requests in order to allow write buffers on the controller to destage to disk. While rare, this generally indicates poor performance management on behalf of the SAN administrator, not a shortcoming of RAID 5 or RAID 10. SAN appliances generally service multiple hosts which compete both for controller cache and spindle time with one another. This contention is largely masked, in that the controller is generally intelligent and adaptive enough to maximize read cache hit ratios while also maximizing the process of destaging data from write cache.

The choice of RAID 10 versus RAID 5 for the purposes of housing a relational database will depend upon a number of factors (spindle availability, cost, business risk, etc.) but, from a performance standpoint, it depends mostly on the type of I/O that database can expect to see. For databases that are expected to be exclusively or strongly read-biased, RAID 10 is often chosen in that it offers a slight speed improvement over RAID 5 on sustained reads and sustained randomized writes. If a database is expected to be strongly write-biased, RAID 5 becomes the more attractive option, since RAID 5 does not suffer from the same write handicap inherent in RAID 10; all spindles in a RAID 5 can be utilized to write simultaneously, whereas only half the members of a RAID 10 can be used. [3] However, for reasons similar to what has eliminated the "read penalty" in RAID 5, the reduced ability of a RAID 10 to handle sustained writes has been largely masked by improvements in controller cache efficiency and disk throughput.

What causes RAID 5 to be slightly slower than RAID 10 on sustained reads is the fact that RAID 5 has parity data interleaved within normal data. For every read pass in RAID 5, there is a probability that a read head may need to traverse a region of parity data. The cumulative effect of this is a slight performance drop compared to RAID 10, which does not use parity, and therefore will never encounter a circumstance where data underneath a head is of no use. For the vast majority of situations, however, most relational databases housed on RAID 10 perform equally well in RAID 5. The strengths and weaknesses of each type only become an issue in atypical deployments, or deployments on overcommitted or outdated hardware.[4]

There are, however, other considerations which must be taken into account other than simply those regarding performance. RAID 5 and other non-mirror-based arrays offer a lower degree of resiliency than RAID 10 by virtue of RAID 10's mirroring strategy. In a RAID 10, I/O can continue even in spite of multiple drive failures. By comparison, in a RAID 5 array, any simultaneous failure involving greater than one drive will render the array itself unusable by virtue of parity recalculation being impossible to perform. For many, particularly in mission-critical environments with enough capital to spend, RAID 10 becomes the favorite as it provides the lowest level of risk.[5]

Additionally, the time required to rebuild data on a hot spare in a RAID 10 is significantly less than RAID 5, in that all the remaining spindles in a RAID 5 rebuild must participate in the process, whereas only the spindle being created and its mirror need to participate in RAID 10. This further increases the reliability advantage of RAID 10 over RAID 5 since the window during which a second disc failure could (if it was the mirror being used in recovery that failed) cause data loss is reduced.

Again, modern SAN design largely masks any performance hit while the RAID array is in a degraded state, by virtue of selectively being able to perform rebuild operations both in-band or out-of-band with respect to existing I/O traffic. Given the rare nature of drive failures in general, and the exceedingly low probability of multiple concurrent drive failures occurring within the same RAID array, the choice of RAID 5 over RAID 10 often comes down to the preference of the storage administrator, particularly when weighed against other factors such as cost, throughput requirements, and physical spindle availability. [6]

In short, the choice of RAID 5 versus RAID 10 involves a complicated mixture of factors. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as the choice of one over the other must be dictated by everything from the I/O characteristics of the database, to business risk, to worst case degraded-state throughput, to the number and type of disks present in the array itself. Over the course of the life of a database, you may even see situations where RAID 5 is initially favored, but RAID 10 slowly becomes the better choice, and vice versa.

Edited by Greensystemsgo - 4/28/11 at 12:53pm
P50
(15 items)
 
   
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-6700HQ NVIDIA Quadro M1000M 4GB Gskill 32gb 4x8gb DDR4 2300mhz Samsung 850 PRO - 1TB SSD m2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
Seagate 2TB w/ 128MB Cache (ST2000LM007) Pioneer External USB-C Blu-Ray Burner Fedora 25 Win 10 LTSB 
MonitorMonitorMonitorPower
15.6" 1920x1080 IPS BenQ GL2460HM 24" LED BenQ GL2460HM 24" LED Lenovo 170w Power adapter 
MouseOther
MX-580 or Razor bluetooth something or other Docking station 40A50230US 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i7 3770k BIOSTAR TH67+ 32gb 4x8 Corsair Vengence 1600 1x 256gb m2 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
6x Seagate 2.5" 3tb > ~8.5tb raid 10 OpenSuse Seasonic G 550w Silverstone SG11B 
Other
Raid card 
  hide details  
Reply
P50
(15 items)
 
   
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-6700HQ NVIDIA Quadro M1000M 4GB Gskill 32gb 4x8gb DDR4 2300mhz Samsung 850 PRO - 1TB SSD m2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
Seagate 2TB w/ 128MB Cache (ST2000LM007) Pioneer External USB-C Blu-Ray Burner Fedora 25 Win 10 LTSB 
MonitorMonitorMonitorPower
15.6" 1920x1080 IPS BenQ GL2460HM 24" LED BenQ GL2460HM 24" LED Lenovo 170w Power adapter 
MouseOther
MX-580 or Razor bluetooth something or other Docking station 40A50230US 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i7 3770k BIOSTAR TH67+ 32gb 4x8 Corsair Vengence 1600 1x 256gb m2 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
6x Seagate 2.5" 3tb > ~8.5tb raid 10 OpenSuse Seasonic G 550w Silverstone SG11B 
Other
Raid card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 16
Wall of text crit for over 9000
my rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e8400 @ 3.0 ghz stock gigabyte ep45-ud3r Gigabyte 660 GTX TI 2Gb OCZ Blade ddr2 memory 4Gb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 120Gbs & Seagate 320 Gb 3.0Gb/s Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-111D Windows 7 Pro x64 Samsung 2233rz 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft USB  Corsair TX650w Cooler Master 690 Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 
Mouse PadAudio
QcK+ Creative Xtreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
my rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e8400 @ 3.0 ghz stock gigabyte ep45-ud3r Gigabyte 660 GTX TI 2Gb OCZ Blade ddr2 memory 4Gb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 120Gbs & Seagate 320 Gb 3.0Gb/s Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-111D Windows 7 Pro x64 Samsung 2233rz 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft USB  Corsair TX650w Cooler Master 690 Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 
Mouse PadAudio
QcK+ Creative Xtreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 16
If you want speed and the feeling of security of data, your best bet is a RAID0 array, and then manually back your data up to a separate, larger hard drive periodically. RAID is fine if a hard drive fails, but it sucks if the problem is data corruption, because the corrupt files will be written to the other drives, which doesn't do much to help preserving your data (had first-hand experience with that, and it really really sucks).

RAID 0 + scheduled backups is the easiest, especially if you're just starting to play with RAID.

However, as per the wall of text above (which doesn't even mention RAID 6), as long as you have a decent controller, you'll never notice a difference in terms of processing overhead, as the controller should be more than competent to do that without noticing it at all.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Green nice text about raid10 vs raid5 smile.gif. Guy, that meens becuse I want to have 3TB of space to buy 3x1TB and 1x3TB. But what do you think about 4x1TB in raid5 plus 1x3TB for backup. Do you think it is risky only to have 6x1TB in Raid 6 or in Raid10 on Areca ARC-1260?. To be honest I wanted everythink for controller to handle becuse I don't want to bother doing backups manually. What is possibility of corrupt files on that controller? How that happened to you?
post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickso;13310497 
Green nice text about raid10 vs raid5 smile.gif. Guy, that meens becuse I want to have 3TB of space to buy 3x1TB and 1x3TB. But what do you think about 4x1TB in raid5 plus 1x3TB for backup. Do you think it is risky only to have 6x1TB in Raid 6 or in Raid10 on Areca ARC-1260?. To be honest I wanted everythink for controller to handle becuse I don't want to bother doing backups manually. What is possibility of corrupt files on that controller? How that happened to you?

Yeah, I can understand not wanting to do manual backups. The problem is not necessarily the controller, but anything--OS file corruptions, system instabilities, anything can contribute to data corruption, and no controller can eliminate that. I don't mean to imply it's some sort of doomsday situation, and I bet tons of people get along fine regardless. But just beware that RAID 10 or RAID 6 will not help prevent against issues with data corruption, only limiting the problem if disks flat-out fail.

My next suggestion would be to use the 1x6 config you were hoping, and just be mindful to manually back up anything that you can't see yourself getting along with to an external drive anyway. RAID is nice, but it's not fool-proof or infallible. Not that hard drives are infallible either, but at least you're limiting yourself to being susceptible to fewer things.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 
ok I will buy 1x3TB and connect it on mb sata controler becuse external hard drive is too expensive for me. But tell me about speed on Areca ARC-1260 what to use to get best speed except RAID0 what should I use.. RAID5, 6 or 10
post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickso;13311018 
ok I will buy 1x3TB and connect it on mb sata controler becuse external hard drive is too expensive for me. But tell me about speed on Areca ARC-1260 what to use to get best speed except RAID0 what should I use.. RAID5, 6 or 10

I've never used that controller, but your speeds are going to be dependent on the block size you set the array up with. Smaller blocks are better if you transfer lots of small chunks of data frequently, whereas large blocks are better if you move large files infrequently. What will you mainly be using the disk for?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
just for games and fun, I thought to put 128k block size and I can't decide between 5,6 or 10 for speed
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickso;13311217 
just for games and fun, I thought to put 128k block size and I can't decide between 5,6 or 10 for speed

With modern controllers, there shouldn't be any noticeable difference in speed between RAID 6 and 10, and 6 offers more parity verification as you could lose up to half of the drives and still retain data on the array.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: RAID Controllers and Software