Frage von Auf Achse:
Keep in touch!
I have a question for data transmission speed of individual hard disks compared to RAID 5 Take 6 pieces 1TB 32Mb Cache hard discs (of course) all the same model. When Rohfilm are randomly distributed over the 6 plates results in cutting the same or similar high speed, as if these disks in Raid 5 Association organized? If YES / NO please Declaration WHY!
Thanks and regards,
Auf Achse
Antwort von Fudoh:
In a raid (5) the data are already evenly distributed across all disks attached - making the Raidcontroller. And although more data must be written (parity data apply) as real in the program, is a Raid (5), both in reading than writing synonymous in every respect faster than individual disks. In a Raid5 from 6 panels You'll come easily to over 300MB/sec read and write - even with middle-controllers.
Regards
Tobias
Antwort von tommyb:
If one can assume that each plate approximately 60 MB / second of each of these panels and creates only one file is read, then you get into the act at a higher rate - but that is not fully exploited.
Thus, the throughput is synonymous as high as possible, but files must be synonymous selectively distributed among the six plates. No. of disks may be more busy than others.
Is one of these boards during the cutting flutes are synonymous then the data path, that is one of the streams is gone.
For RAID 5 you have the advantage that there is only one drive and you need not bother to give the data on their size (ie, after bitrate / second) synonymous properly weighted push on the plates. The performance of a RAID 5 would, in the case of files (eg compressed AVCHD editing) for six simultaneous streams (6 x 24 Mbit enough = 144: 8 = 18 MB / sec). Hindrance would be only that the head of the disks used his position would change very often.
That means:
For the six loose sheets of the head would read out continuously streams, in a RAID 5 would head out and go forth. That could push the performance in this case considerably if the plates do not comply quickly enough. If they are also highly fragmented or very small block sizes (using everything s.4 n.and below), the bottle neck even tighter.
If you absolutely want to have a fast system and want to work reasonably comfortably, it should be possibly a RAID 00 System.
Here are four hard disks used to turn two RAID 0 array to create the RAID with each other again are 0 connected. This one, however, has no resilience - on the contrary, a particularly high risk of default. A disk dies, EVERYTHING is gone.
Another alternative is a RAID 50 system. Here one needs at least six plates, has the capacity of four plates, a high speed, comfort and safety above all.
Regardless of what RAID you choose, it should be used with a real card hardware RAID controller on each case, a real RAID.
