[THIN] Re: What is the optimal RAID configuration
- From: Jay.Jukes@xxxxxxxxxx
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:43:53 +0930
Could another possible solution be RAID 0+1? This would provide fault
tolerance and provide greater performance
Cheers
Jay Jukes
***********************************************
COM Centre Systems Engineer
MCSE MCP+I CCA
CSM Technology
Ph: 61 8 8936 1400
Fax: 61 8 8941 1657
Email: jay.jukes@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.csm.com.au
***********************************************
Adam_Baum@xxxxx
sa.az.us To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: cc: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
<thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
thin-bounce@fre thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
elists.org Subject: [THIN] Re: What is the
optimal RAID configuration
13/07/2002
01:09
Please respond
to thin
One thing no one has asked yet (at least I have not seen it), is how are
the two different RAIDs going to be configured? The original question
stated RAID1 for system, RAID 5 for application. Is this all happening on
the same system? If so, unless this server has the ability to split the
drive cage into multiple channels, there will be a performance hit mixing
the two styles. I tried this on a DL580 and DL380 and was very
disappointed with the results.
adam
Joe Shonk
<JShonk@gtcsyst To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
<thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ems.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [THIN] Re: What is
the optimal RAID configuration
thin-bounce@fre
elists.org
07/12/2002
08:39 AM
Please respond
to thin
RAID 1 is fault-tolerant... Multiple load balanced servers in a farm are
not. Granted there is contigencies/redundancy built in a load balanced
farm, but it's not considered fault-tolerant. If the drive fails, the whole
server fails. Dropping any connections it had with it, and possible loss
of valuable data. With Raid 1, if you lose a drive your still ticking
aways as if nothing happened.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Riggins [mailto:Roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:13 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: What is the optimal RAID configuration
Another possibility is RAID 0 if you want performance, let multiple
servers be your redundancy.
ROGER RIGGINS
A+, MCSE, CCNA, CCA
ACES 319-352-1234
WWW.ACESIOWA.COM
-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon Wyatt [mailto:swyatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:49 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: What is the optimal RAID configuration
Generally Terminal Servers will have a mirrored disk configuration.
Since your applications are running from another server (hoepully) then
the additional RAID 5 configuration is unnecessary.
Most of the people that I work with are using 1U servers for Metaframe,
so supporting a RAID 5 array is impossible within the server itself.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sangha, Jay S
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:36 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] What is the optimal RAID configuration
Does anybody have any information in regards to optimal disk RAID
configuration for WTS/Citrix servers. We are putting together a new
build standard but we are unsure as to the best set-up. We are
considering RAID 1 for the system and RAID 5 for the application. Is
this sort of stuff documented anywhere.
Kind Regards,
Jay Sangha
NT/2000 Server Operations
SCS Global Services
Tel: +44 (0)1438 76 2630
Fax: +44 (0)1438 76 2208
===================================
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link.
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
===================================
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link.
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
