I'd stick with HW RAID 10 since it is OS independent. Also Storage Spaces relies on the host's CPU, while HW RAID has its own module to perform all required calculations which means that the repository will have more CPU power for its daily routine.So I was thinking of R730xd with 16 x 6TB NLSAS RAID10, but do I use Perc HW Raid10 or Mirrored Storage Spaces ?
Not quite much, except for NLSAS being just SAS drive with 7200 RPM.Do you know anything about the latest large NLSAS standard
A particular NLSAS drive may or may not be as reliable as any other SAS/SATA/NLSAS drive. You need to check specs to know for sure. Also may I ask you what's your backup policy and bottleneck statistics?<...>i'm unsure which is best for backup type workloads.
nmdange wrote:You might consider doing RAID 50 with 14 drives (2 raid 0 on top of 2 7disk raid 5s). You can get better performance than RAID 6 but you don't lose as much space as RAID 10.
primo42 wrote:What is your opinion on the configuration? Do you have any experience with Intel JBOD systems? I guess also the existing WD Red drives should work with the mentioned RAID controller? If we decide for the new hard drives, should we get the 4K version or the 512e?
The overall reliability, performance, and useful capacity of a RAID array depend not only on what HDDs you use but also on the amount of those. For example RAID 60 with 8 or less drives is not a good option because its capacity is the same as in RAID 10 (50% of total capacity) but it is also slower (lesser write penalty on RAID 10), rebuild longer which increases a chance of failure and so on.Why not raid60? The Hitachi or similar SATA drives are good these days. I had Hitachi running in raid6 for 5 years zero issues.
primo42 wrote:Since I cannot edit my post, a note here -> Seagate Enterprise Capacity 3.5 HDD 4Kn 10TB, SATA 6Gb/s = SAS 12Gb/s .
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests