Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Nigel Metheringham (nigel.metheringham@???):
>
>
>> I have to say I am getting less convinced by RAID 1 on systems.
>>
>
> RAID at all for me, actually. I've seen it crumble down to a grinding
> halt several times (using software raid, mdadm, that is). While it was
> designed so that a disk could fail without the service being
> interrupted, in my experience a disk failing will still make the system
> unusable. Either because the kernel goes haywire trying to adress the
> non-working device or mdadm making decisions causing the entire set to
> go offline.
>
> Especially mdadm setups where you combine RAID-0 and RAID-1 sets to
> achieve RAID-10 tend to break when there's problems.
>
> Still, recovery is easier as the set can rebuild or data can be
> retrieved from just one disk from a set...
>
>
>
I have an unusual system myself but if I were setting up something
ordinary what I would do is run 2 drives with no raid. Then every hour
or so run rsync to copy all your important data between the drives. You
rick losing an hour's worth of email in the case of hard drive failure
but you gain speed and simplicity.
Also - I recommend really big SATA II drives. Buy a 750G or 1T drive. On
the lower numbered tracks these drives are a lot faster. Most people
don't know this but the outer tracks are about 2,5 times as fast as the
inner tracks. So an oversized drive will increase performance.
