|
The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024
|
Latest message you have seen: RE: (ukha_d) ShowShifter vs. TiVo |
[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: OT Raid Setup for MP3 Server
- To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: OT Raid Setup for MP3 Server
- From: "graham_howe" <graham@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:43:59 -0000
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
--- In ukha_d@y..., "gjggroupid" <register@r...> wrote:
> Yes, the setup util for the raid card will let you pick which
drives
> you want in or out of the array. Just select drives 2,3,4 for
the
> array. You may get the benefit of any raid controller cache this
way
> too.
>
> The only cards i've seen are promise and adaptac for IDE.
> Adaptec 1200 doesn't do raid 5 so the Raid ATA 2400 model is the
one.
>
> GarryG
>
This is an interesting thread, though it does now look like I will
need to do a full server rebuild to take advantage of larger disks.
I did make an error in my previous post, with 2 x 80 and 1 x 60 it is
120Gb logical disk I have and not 140Gb. This means that if I swapped
the 60Gb for another 80Gb then I would gain (following a rebuild)
40Gb on the logical disk which is tempting.
For those who are interested, I have the following card:
http://www.dabs.com/products/prod-info3-info.asp?&m=y&quicklinx=14Q6
which has 6 connectors, can support disks larger than 137Gb, is
ATA100 and comes with 6 cables and 3 hot swap caddies for 310 quid
plus VAT.
As I will now have to plan an upgrade of the server anyway, and I
will have serveral disks lying about when I do it, is there a real
benefit in separating the OS from the data. The reason I went with
raid 5 in the first place was for resilliance of the OS (in this case
SBS2K so it includes Exchange, IIS, SQL) following a 'disaster' where
a hard disk failed and wiped out my server. I now have everything on
one raid 5 'disk' but I could set up the future system to have 2 x
80Gb mirrored for the SBS2K components and then 3 (or 4) x 160Gb
disks on raid 5 array for data (mainly MP3 and in future divx).
Does this give significant benefit (there is no additional cost as I
have the smaller disks already) or would I be better off just putting
everything on raid 5 as I do at the moment.
Finally (sorry if this has been answered and I missed it), can disks
be added to an existing raid 5 array after it has been set up and
data is on it? I suspect now that the answer is no, but it is worth
asking. Quite simply, I can afford to buy 3 disks sooner than 4!
Regards
Graham
Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
|
For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe: ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe: ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner: ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|
|