Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old November 13, 2012, 07:04 PM
altereDad's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 55

My System Specs

Default

Let alone, when you have a failure the system and RAID parity changes and your system will suffer in speed until you get a new drive re-initialized.
__________________
Need caffeine!
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2012, 03:28 AM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
Nope, nothing you can do but wait it out. It'll go "faster" if you stop trying to access it.

As Bluebyte and myself are saying though, you should really re-consider RAID5 at such a size in a non-enterprise environment. You're using consumer hard drives that are prone to failure and 1 drive loss means you're going to have to suffer through this whole initialize process all over again.
Ok, i'll! My RAID controller don't make raid6, witch is too bad!

I set the priority to 100% on the initialization and now it will take 4 days.

With a RAID10 i'd still get 12Tb. I'll think about it.

Thx a lot guys for all the tips!

Last edited by oliver_ssa; November 14, 2012 at 03:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2012, 05:46 PM
grinder's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 819

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
This looks like the low-end LSI cards, it likely does not have hardware XOR ("RAID Engine") so RAID5 is always going to have terrible write speeds. It also lacks any onboard cache as well. This is a HBA product rather than a ROC product.

I would suggest doing RAID10 instead and just suck up some of the storage loss. You'll get the performance at least. Otherwise, look into buying a proper RAID controller.

My only other thought, was the array fully initialized? That should take a couple days at your capacity.
nailed it

1) Cache-less raid5 runs very very poorly, minimum 256MB memory on the controller for decent RAID5 performance, 512MB if you can afford it.
2) if you are not using enterprise class SATA/SAS drives you risk severe data corruption over time, I hope you are backing up.
3) JD's advise is solid... you will get the best overall mileage on that controller if you revert to a RAID10 setup instead of a RAID5 setup. And yes any array runs like ass unless it's fully initialized.

I would also have the RAID Web Console run regular consistency checks to preemptively find bad blocks in your drives and move the data blocks around accordingly.
__________________
Phenom II 945 :: ASUS M4A78-E (780G) :: BFG 285GTX :: 4GB Mushkin DDR2 (5-4-4-12) :: Creative Xi-Fi :: Seagate 500 gig 7200.12 (better than WD BLACK!!!!!) :: Samsung 2493HM
Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
array , raid controller , raid5

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SLI Configuration jimmyb007 Video Cards 9 January 3, 2012 05:53 AM
How does raid5 work? Blu Storage 16 January 6, 2011 05:08 AM
RAID5 of 3x1TB drives JD Storage 16 August 21, 2010 05:30 PM
Win7 and soft raid5?! SaskGoose Storage 3 March 15, 2010 04:50 PM
Which Hardware RAID5 Card? CanadaRox Storage 12 August 3, 2008 12:26 PM