RAID Link Blast

scottalanmiller

Just added the Comparing RAID 10 and RAID 01 link to the list.

technobabble

I have read almost all of these. Do you have any IOPS per RAID stuff?

scottalanmiller

Nothing on IOPS. That'll be a good topic for a future one, thanks!

technobabble

Your welcome. I found a site a couple years ago with an IOPS calculator per RAID type.

scottalanmiller

Just added the RAID 100 link to the list.

technobabble

@technobabble said:

Your welcome. I found a site a couple years ago with an IOPS calculator per RAID type.

Here is the IOPS calculator I was talking about.

scottalanmiller

@technobabble said:

@technobabble said:

Your welcome. I found a site a couple years ago with an IOPS calculator per RAID type.

Here is the IOPS calculator I was talking about.

That's the one that I often use.

Carnival Boy

Do SMB people still have RAID arguments? I just figured everyone was RAID 10 now.

I had a quote for a new ERP system last week and in the vendor proposal under recommendations for SQL server they've written "at least 300Gb of disk space in RAID 5". I was bit WTF, haven't we moved on from specifying RAID levels?

This is an ERP vendor, although they do IT support as well. I've no idea where they came up with the 300Gb figure from either. Disks are so cheap these days and you can get 600GB SFF disks so lack of storage seems unlikely to be a problem in a typical SMB.

scottalanmiller

@Carnival-Boy said:

Do SMB people still have RAID arguments? I just figured everyone was RAID 10 now.

Every few hours. RAID 6 still plays a huge role in SMB needs too. Far under 50%, but way more than 1%. I'd guess somewhere around 15-20% but that's scientific at all. RAID 10 and RAID 6 make up the vast majority of all SMB storage recommendations, though (assuming that RAID 1 is a subset of RAID 10 and RAID 100 is a super set that we ignore.)

scottalanmiller

@Carnival-Boy said:

I had a quote for a new ERP system last week and in the vendor proposal under recommendations for SQL server they've written "at least 300Gb of disk space in RAID 5". I was bit WTF, haven't we moved on from specifying RAID levels?

Especially from specifying the worst possible RAID level. Even in the 1990s RAID 5 was a "compromise" level. It should never be specified as a requirement, only possibly a minimum. In this case, the wording is confusing. Maybe they meant RAID 5 (or better) which is okay potentially. But requiring RAID 5 period, is bad. All depends on how they meant it to read.