SUMMARY: SO and RAID array

From: Carlos Sanchez <csanchez_at_cirp.es>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 13:30:00 +0200

Hello managers,

This is a little summary of answers sent to me about allocate the
operating system in a RAID array.

If any body wants to get all origial messages, please, contac with me at
<csanchez_at_cirp.es>.

Thank you very much to:
        Dave Golden <golden_at_falcon.invincible.com>
        Edward C. Bailey <ed_at_pipdog.niehs.nih.gov>
        Kurt Carlson <SXKAC_at_orca.alaska.edu>
        Allan Small <asmall_at_isu.usyd.edu.au>
        Somebody (deamon) from nabeth.cxo.dec.com

for their more than good answers.

1. There are many systems where O/S is allocated in a RAID array (at any
level). DEC Spain said: No problems.

2. Which is the better RAID level? I don't know, but Allan Small sent me
a table about performance an data security on the RAID levels:

        performance
        read write redundancy relative cost
RAID0 high high none low
RAID1 mid-high mid-low high high
RAID0+1 high mid high high
RAID5 mid-low low mid mid

So, I repeat what Edward C. Bailey said: "... We normally put six drives
in a shelf, and mirror (RAID 1) the first two for the O/S and RAID 5 the
rest. With five or more disks, I think that it is a good idea.

A note: when I say O/S, I am talking about /root, /usr, /var and swap
partitions.

By the way, each machine is a world, and each one must monitorize the
disk/s usage and thinks about it.

It could be good the RAID 1 and RAID 5 solution and try to balance the
writes on them moving files.

Thanks to all. I hope this help you.

Best regards,
-- 
J. Carlos Sanchez Rivas <csanchez_at_cirp.es>
Responsable de Sistemas Hardware
Centro de I.L.L. Ramon Pi~neiro, GALICIA (SPAIN)
Received on Fri Aug 30 1996 - 13:58:54 NZST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Nov 08 2023 - 11:53:47 NZDT