We are developing a server with historical maps and aerial photographs of San Escobar https://twitter.com/rpdsanescobar?lang=en https://www.facebook.com/sanescobarcountry/ Amount of data is relatively small (~12 TB), as the country is still young, but is going to increase soon. What would be better choice to store and edit such data (aerial images in raster format and maps in raster or vector): RAID 10 or RAID 5? From practical point of view: is the RAID 5 performing noticeably worse than RAID 10?
The answer depends a lot on how you have the server configured as a whole. First, it is important to note that RAID isn't a backup solution. As such, I I write this with the assumption that you additional measures in place to back-up and restore the data as needed.
In terms of the configuration, two things you must keep in mind. First, regardless of the RAID configuration you select, if you do not use a RAID controller with a DRAM cache you will see poor performance since the on disk cache may be disabled. Second, the rule of thumb is that RAID 10 is generally significantly faster for random access reads and writes than RAID 5. Thus, RAID 10 is generally preferred for applications where performance is a concern and would make sense if you are going to be accessing and editing GIS data on a regular basis.
For a really nuanced response you likely want to consult with someone that deals with server hardware on a regular basis, but hopefully this is helpful!
A little googling could help you. For your perusal three links are given:
https://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/251893-32-raid-raid
https://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/raid5-vs-raid-10-safety-performance.html
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Cartography