Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to balance disk space against fault tolerance. I would like fault tolerance to be able to handle multiple disk failures (as I may not be able to afford replacements disks or have the time for weeks possibly)

The main purpose of the home Linux server shall be a place to backup other machines too, store/share large amounts of data. So the data will be re-creatable most of the time. Storage of media (ie backup of my DVD's, Cd's etc)

I had a RAID10 array of 6 x 1.5TB but due to operator incompetence and laziness, I now have 6 empty disks :-) and a clean start.

One of the disks is definitely failing (over 55 error from smartctl and short and long test errors) so it will be sent away for warranty replacement - but I would still like to include it in the final array. Lets call the bad disk /dev/sdc

Machine has 6 sata ports and 2 IDE (with 2 CD drives). Dual Quad core Xeon, 16Gb RAM. And really 1 user most of the time.

[NB I may be able to remove a CD drive and add a 7th IDE disk just for the OS only to separate data/OS] Otherwise plan is to save 100GB partition and put the OS there (maybe mirror between disks)

Option A) RAID 6 sd[abdef], sdc as hot-spare (but gets sent for replacement soon) raid-devices=5 spare=1

Option B) RAID 6 sd[abdef], sdc as missing (but gets sent for replacement soon) raid-devices=6 spare=0

Option C) RAID 10 sd[abdef], sdc as hot-spare (but gets sent for replacement soon) raid-devices=5 spare=1

Option D) RAID 10 sd[abdef], sdc as missing (but gets sent for replacement soon) raid-devices=6 spare=0

Option A is seeming to be the best at the moment because I'll get 4.5TB of space and room for 3 disk failures if I calculate it correctly.

This will all be done with mdadm soft raid.

Which do you recommend or are there better possibilities layouts that I could use?

share|improve this question

migrated from serverfault.com Jan 24 '12 at 23:15

This question came from our site for system and network administrators.

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Raid10 may not be able to handle two disks failing, so raid6 would be more reliable. It also gives more storage capacity. Option A only can handle the third failure if it happens after the rebuild onto the hot spare completes, but you only get 50% of the total space.

The odds of having 3 out of 6 disks fail are very slim, so I would be inclined to think that the loss of space ( and throughput ) is not worth having a hot spare. What you could do as a compromise is run without a hot spare, and in the event that you have a failure, and know you can not replace it for some time, and are worried that you might have two more failures, you could then reshape the array to a 5 disk raid6 and be back to being able to handle two more failures.

This requires that you use a filesystem that you can shrink since reshaping the array will reduce its capacity.

share|improve this answer
    
Good point about having 3 failed disks. –  Adrian Cornish Jan 25 '12 at 0:40

I recommend you check out Robin Harris (StorageMojo)'s blog Dear StorageMojo: cheap home bulk storage?. Robin, who writes about the data storage industry, thinks he should change his storage server "from RAID 5 to multiple RAID 0 stripes for speed and capacity." But read the 50 comments for other opinions.

  • ZFS to administer the file system and drives. But, "stay AWAY!! from ZFS unless you are a sysadmin type or SUN customer. I’m on zfs-discuss and the sheer number of problems people run into for simple stuff is mind-boggling", says another commenter
  • Drobo, but "too expensive per gigabyte"
  • "mini-atx PC (the size of a breadbox) running either openfiler or freenas"
  • Solaris 11 Express
  • "RAID 0 is bad news and when it fails you will have major corruption issues."
  • '“The folks asking this question aren’t full time sysadmins..” Soon as I read this I thought “Get a NAS”.', e.g. 'QNAP 659 Pro+ with 6x 2 TB drives in a RAID-6 configuration.'
  • "what is wrong with just high grade SATA spindles, an a mirror copy, same spec? Things like WE4 do not even power up unless needed.... And suddenly, for

I don't claim this picks one of the options you put forward. But it is food for thought.

Me, I chose a NAS, with 2x1 TB drives in Raid-1 (mirrored). Every now again I rotate one of the drives to off-site storage and plug the previous off-site drive into the NAS.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks but I already have all the hardware - for a few years now - plus I run Virtual Machine and large compiles on the server too. So its making best use of what I have –  Adrian Cornish Jan 25 '12 at 0:40

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.