Hosting again

[Peter Corlett]

On 29 Oct 2007, at 21:55, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
[...]
> Errm, they do completely different things. "I've decided that, given
> your budget, dreadlocks is the way to do. Were you able to spend  
> more, I
> recommend liposuction".

I'm not denying that they are different, but for toy servers, RAID1  
is an easy choice. It satisfies the KISS principle, that it requires  
just two disks means you can get away without any add-in cards on  
your typical cheap x86 box, and it has reasonable performance  
characteristics that are no worse than a single disk solution.

RAID5 or RAID6 is a harder choice to justify. You need more spindles,  
possibly an actual hardware RAID controller instead of Linux md, and  
the performance on some workloads is going to suck. Plus it's  
probably not going to fit in a 1U case any more unless you buy a  
really expensive server and/or case.

(And in cases where I'd consider RAID5 or RAID6, Solaris ZFS and  
RAIDZ is now strongly tempting instead.)