Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: RAID 5 recommendation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    177
    Rep Power
    8

    Default RAID 5 recommendation

    When I was reading the multiple server install document in the section where it was giving system requirements I saw a note that said:

    On systems with more than 100 accounts RAID 5 is not recommended.
    Why is that a recommendation?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    76
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Disk writes are slower with RAID 5 as a result of all the parity checking.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    45
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    In that case, what is the recommended RAID or disk setup for a server hosting more than 100 users?

  4. #4
    phoenix is offline Zimbra Consultant & Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Vannes, France
    Posts
    23,587
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ECB View Post
    In that case, what is the recommended RAID or disk setup for a server hosting more than 100 users?
    You should use RAID10.
    Regards


    Bill


    Acompli: A new adventure for Co-Founder KevinH.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    374
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Here we do our STORE, INDEX, and DB on RAID10. BACKUP and HSM are on RAID5.

    Matt

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,017
    Rep Power
    24

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    100
    Rep Power
    8

    Question Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix View Post
    You should use RAID10.
    What is your opinion of RAID50 and a decent controller w/ battery backed write cache?

    Also what is your option regarding filesystems? I have seen much better zimbra performance on reiserfs than ext3 with no problems.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,017
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    reiser I would not use IMHO ... stay mainstream on ext3 and optimize. So many factors are involved we would need to understand your full requirement first.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    100
    Rep Power
    8

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by uxbod View Post
    reiser I would not use IMHO ... stay mainstream on ext3 and optimize. So many factors are involved we would need to understand your full requirement first.
    <rant>
    I think that is a silly reaction. riserfs3 has been mainstream for a very long time. We use riserfs3 for all of our servers and have for many years, it has been far more solid than ext3 with better performance. People who had riserfs3 problems are thinking back to the early releases with the 2.4 kernel.

    If you have technical reasons, then by all means explain. But what you said sounds like the typical anti-riserfs3 FUD.
    <rant />

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    1,649
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    people are rightfully skeptical about the future of reiser given the creator is locked up and the company mainly behind it's development disappeared. however, it's still being actively developed afaik.

Similar Threads

  1. recommended RAID level
    By jdunker in forum Administrators
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:00 PM
  2. Zimbra and Mac Mini with Firewire RAID
    By DaleC in forum Installation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2007, 08:33 PM
  3. Concerns about Zimbra Performance
    By soxfan in forum Administrators
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-15-2006, 10:38 AM
  4. Debian Base Install Recommendation?
    By mtv in forum Installation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2006, 08:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •