Experiences w/ Software RAID 5 Under Linux? 541
MagnusDredd asks: "I am trying to build a large home drive array on the cheap. I have 8 Maxtor 250G Hard Drives that I got at Fry's Electronics for $120 apiece. I have an old 500Mhz machine that I can re-purpose to sit in the corner and serve files. I plan on running Slackware on the machine, there will be no X11, or much other than SMB, NFS, etc. I have worked with hardware arrays, but have no experience with software RAIDs. Since I am about to trust a bunch of files to this array (not only mine but I'm storing files for friends as well), I am concerned with reliability. How stable is the current RAID 5 support in Linux? How hard is it to rebuild an array? How well does the hot spare work? Will it rebuild using the spare automatically if it detects a drive has failed?"
Please! (Score:0, Insightful)
stick with hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
my 2 cents
Re:Stick with hardware RAID (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider--your ATA RAID controller dies three years down the road. What if the manufacturer no longer makes it?
Suddenly, you've got nearly 2 TB of data that is completely unreadable by normal controllers, and you can't replace the broken one! Oops!
Software RAID under Linux provides a distinct advantage, because it will always work with regular off-the-shelf hardware. A dead ATA controller can be replaced with any other ATA controller, or the drives can be taken out entirely and put in ANY other computer.
Here is a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did you read the RAID-Howto (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't go with 3ware (Score:4, Insightful)
For all I know, you could have a very good reason. But if you tell someone to make sure to to stay away from something, you should provide a reason. Especially if it's something that seems to have a really good reputation.
Avoid cheap raid controllers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stick with hardware RAID (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, perhaps my understanding is wrong, but isn't RAID5 intended solely for reliability (that is, for making the storage system tolerant of a single drive failure, and thus increase its mean uptime). If you want the data to stay safe then use a backup, not a RAID.
In general (not replying you your otherwise quite correct post, please don't feel browbeaten) I really wonder
a) why anyone would need the additional uptime in an in-home setting and
b) what the point of a generic IDE raid5 is anyway. When one drive dies, the system keeps running with the hotspare. On a commercial array (or using hot-pluggable storage like firewire) you can pull out the bad drive, put in a new one, and the system rebuilds that as the hotspare, all without any loss of service. But with regular ATA (and I guess SATA, although I'm not so sure) you can't hotswap, so you have to powerdown the array to swap in the new drive - at which point the reliability you got from RAID5 is gone. Hmm, well, I suppose it's less downtime than you'd have restoring from backups, but it's questionable if that's worth the ongoing performance hit the RAID5 (even a hardware one) would cause.
Bottleneck is not CPU (Score:3, Insightful)
One Drive per controller (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, give 'mdadm' a whirl - a little nicer to use than the legacy raidtools-1.x (Neil's stuff really rocks!)
Software RAID5 has been working extrememly well for us, but it is NOT a replacement for a real backup strategy.
Re:Works great (Score:3, Insightful)
OP said he switched to fireware for hot swapping reasons alone, that is why I mentioned SATA as an alternative.
If you're beant on having an external RAID 5, you're probably safest going with a DIY gigabit ethernet NAS.
Re:Stick with hardware RAID (Score:2, Insightful)
Software RAID is probably ok for you (Score:5, Insightful)
The scenario you've mentioned is probably OK to use a software RAID. I use it in a production enviroment without problem with a higher stress that your setup will probably have.
I'd suggest you to consider the following items
a) cooling system - those HD can generate a lot of heat. Buy a full tower case and add those HD coolers to make sure your HDs stay cool
b) Buy the HDs from different brands and stores - RAID5 (either hardware or software) can recover from one drive. If you buy all from the same brand/store chances are that you end up with 2+ drives with the same defective hardware
c) cpu - if you are going to use this number of drives the processor will be a majo bottleneck. Do not forget that RAID5 XOR your data to calculate the parity.
d) partition scheme - use smaller partitions and group them together using LVM. This you help you to recover from a smaller problem without taking a lot of time to reebuild the array
Re:Ok. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've used them all, Seagate primarily though (SCSI servers), and have noticed a trend. They all suck the same!
The sooner we can move to cheap solid state storage the better.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Software RAID is probably ok for you (Score:3, Insightful)
Be aware 2.6 LVM still seems to have some 2Tb limits.
Re:RAID5 is for High Availability, not Storage! (Score:3, Insightful)
While I have to agree that data can be lost because of user error, I built a 2tb RAID 5 out of Maxtor 300gb SATA drives and have thus far had one in five of the drives fail. And, of course, two drives failed within a day of each other so I lost the whole shebang. RAID 5 is fine for stuff like movies and music but I'm sticking to RAID 0+1 for the really important stuff (along with good rsync backups of course).
So, "RAID5 is for High Availability but not Security" might be a better way of expressing your sentiment.
Also, SW RAID is partition based (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it's partition based, not disk based (under Linux, at least). This means that with just two drives you can create one two-disk RAID-1 array (for safety) and one two-disk RAID-0 array (for performance). Just create two partitions on each drive, pair the first partition on each drive in a RAID-0 config and the second partitions as RAID-1.
You can't do a single RAID-1/0 array with only two disks though. You could try, but you wouldn't gain anything (in fact, you'd lose).