which is Best way to implement SBS 2003 (RAID issues)

Discussion in 'Windows Small Business Server' started by Martin_C, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. Martin_C

    Martin_C Guest

    I'm having a hard time using raid 10

    my current partions are C:OS D:profile E:Date F:Scanner running on raid10.
    However, everytime there is a failure in the raid10 my OS is messed up.
    I'm planning to do is this way

    RAID 1 on C (hardware raid) 200gb (2 HD)
    RAID 0 on D, E, F (hardware raid) 400gb (2 HD each 200gb)
    JBOB 500GB to do microsoft software mirror of D, E, F
    Daily or twice a day NTbackup on C

    Any suggestions?
     
    Martin_C, Apr 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. IMO having 4 200gb drives to yield 600gb of storage, you should just make
    them all a RAID 5. Much less complex, and it seems like you're a lot less
    likely to have a failure in the first place. You need all those backups
    because your RAID 0 has no redundancy, and that issue is solved with a RAID
    5 as well. I'd just make the last drive a hot spare for an extra layer of
    redundancy and do one backup per day.

    IMO all of these ultra-performance configurations don't make any perceptible
    difference to the users in our SBS-sized networks. Also IMO, the added
    failover protection of a RAID 5 with hot spare should eliminate enough
    restores and other aggravation to more than mitigate any minor performance
    you lose with that configuration.
     
    Dave Nickason [SBS MVP], Apr 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I sure like the looks of all that disk space, but can't afford it with scsi
    and haven't got the guts to go sata ;-).
     
    Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP], Apr 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Martin_C

    Martin_C Guest

    well I tried raid 5 with promise SX4300 and it is very unreliable. I got all
    my HD dropped due to one that is corrupted.

    So noone actually uses raid 1 for OS drive? I'm currently using LSI 1506
    SATA controller which allows 0/1/10/5/50. However, I find that if they are in
    the same array, it is a nightmare to fix it.
     
    Martin_C, Apr 13, 2006
    #4
  5. Martin_C

    Martin_C Guest

    .... why don't you go with sata? is there more change of getting corruption?
    I'm having a lot of corruption lately. To be honest I hate raid 10 but most
    sata raid with PCX do not offer 0+1 anymore

     
    Martin_C, Apr 13, 2006
    #5
  6. Martin_C

    Martin_C Guest

    It turns out the raid enclosure was the problem. I guess I learned the lesson
    "NEVER buy a enclosure that has temperature monitoring or fan control" nor
    cheap ones. It must be fairly simple and not fancy features.
     
    Martin_C, May 3, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.