- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
So an acquaintance of mine has offered to pay for my services in setting him up with a small file server that will also double as a print server.
I decided I'm not going to build it because I don't want to be stuck supporting it for more than the initial installation/configuration. I'll be setting him up with a low end Dell or HP server.
Basically right now he has 1 TB of data and I figure this needs to be about 3 TB in size so he doesn't outgrow it in a couple years and have some sort of redundancy or backup and needs to have good throughput as multiple users will be reading/writing files up to 500 MB in size at the same time.
At first I thought 4 of Seagate's 1.5 TB drives using a combination of striping and mirroring. Then I thought two spindles probably wouldn't provide the performance it sounds like he'll need.
So I thought, what about 3 of those 1.5 TB drives in RAID 5, which would give better performance and redundancy that protects against hardware failures, but that doesn't really protect against data corruption and accidental deletions and stuff like that.
So I figured 4 1.5 TB drives in RAID 5 would provide enough space for the data storage, plus I could partition it off and have a partition to store nightly backups and have the performance of 4 spindles.
That's what I'm planning on now... anything I've overlooked with that solution aside from the "more spindles = more points of failure" argument?
I decided I'm not going to build it because I don't want to be stuck supporting it for more than the initial installation/configuration. I'll be setting him up with a low end Dell or HP server.
Basically right now he has 1 TB of data and I figure this needs to be about 3 TB in size so he doesn't outgrow it in a couple years and have some sort of redundancy or backup and needs to have good throughput as multiple users will be reading/writing files up to 500 MB in size at the same time.
At first I thought 4 of Seagate's 1.5 TB drives using a combination of striping and mirroring. Then I thought two spindles probably wouldn't provide the performance it sounds like he'll need.
So I thought, what about 3 of those 1.5 TB drives in RAID 5, which would give better performance and redundancy that protects against hardware failures, but that doesn't really protect against data corruption and accidental deletions and stuff like that.
So I figured 4 1.5 TB drives in RAID 5 would provide enough space for the data storage, plus I could partition it off and have a partition to store nightly backups and have the performance of 4 spindles.
That's what I'm planning on now... anything I've overlooked with that solution aside from the "more spindles = more points of failure" argument?