|
Gothmog1065 posted:Again, my biggest consideration is to make sure that if I do put something like ESX on the bare metal and run their servers off the same raid, that the DB writes aren't going to kill it. From what I'm reading is the "deeper" a raid is (IE: having more disks in a RAID 6) helps the write speeds since there are more drives to write to. I'm just looking at potential configurations for a new server so I can get them the best they can get with some future expandibility as well. Depending on the specific implementation, a RAID5/6 will have the read performance of the disks in aggregate, but only the write IOPS of one disk. The reason DB stores were always on a raid 10 or something similar was due to the fact that you could get more IOPS out of the system with a reasonable amount of overhead and chance of failure. These days databases go on SSDs, anything media, office file, or pdf goes on HDDs. Assuming the raid card can handle it, and the drive bays are there: Raid 1/10 of SSDs, 3-4x as large as the database and transaction logs are now. Raid 6 of 4-8TB nearline SAS/SATA drives for basically everything else.
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:Thanks, it was the read then, not the write. That clarifies a lot. Backups are a must. Most of the synology units are pretty great, the DS918+ is probably more or less ideal as a dedicated backup target. Cheap enough to probably get away with, robust enough that it should work well enough longer term.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 21:22
|
|