3 ms·
It depends on what you value more. Do you want as much storage as possible and not care about redundancy? Then RAID 0 or JBOD would give you a lot of space. I w
by migrantgeek 14y ago
It depends on what you value more. Do you want as much storage as possible and not care about redundancy? Then RAID 0 or JBOD would give you a lot of space. I wouldn't recommend it myself but it's an option.
If you care about redundancy but want a good amount of space, you can go with a RAID 5. You'll lose some write performance especially if one of the drives crashes but you won't lose anything.
I would recommend using 2 drives in a RAID 1 for OS and using the other 6 as a RAID 10 for storage. You'll get good performance and redundancy for both storage and the OS.
For a more specific recommendation, more data is needed about your needs.
- markmcb 14y agoThanks. Yeah, I left it a little vague as to not sway any opinions. I definitely want at least minimal redundancy on both arrays just to ease the hassle of recovering from a disk failure. I guess I'm really trying to decide if hardware RAID is the way to go, or if letting a fast disk controller hand off the work to software (e.g., zfs) is a better option. Anyway, I'm just curious to hear what others are doing especially given all the "RAID is dying" talk that's popped up in the last few years.