|
Let me refine my calculation about disk config with 4 GB drives Option 1 - you cannot exchange the 8 GB drives and have to buy another 2x 8GB to form a RAID set - you have 5x 4GB and 4x 8GB then, which gives you roughly 4x 3 GB + 4 GB and 4x 6.5 GB = 16 GB + 26 GB = 42 GB as total size and one disk slot left over. Option 2 - you exchange (somehow ;-) ) the 8 GB drives and fill up any slots with old and cheap 4 GB drives this gives you 8x 4 GB minus 10% = 29 GB + 8 GB = 37 GB and adds the possibility to spread data over 10 equal disk arms. just my two cents from over the big lake ... Philipp Philipp Rusch schrieb: > No, no ! > It's like that: > If you have just 4 drives, all of them are used for the "extra" parity >information to be stored. > You loose about 20% of total capacit, compared to mirroring (50% loss) this >is okay. > If you now add another 5th., 6th or 7th drive of equal size to the same >controller, all of these > disks are secured by the "extra" parity info of the first 4 drives and the >5th, 6th and 7th keep > their original size. If you give DST a whole bunch of 8 drives at once to >make up a parity set > a different algorythm is used, that is, the set is made from 8 drives instead >of 4 and you only > loose about 10% of capacity for parity info, which is now equally spread over >all 8 disks. > This is the most economic way to add drives on an AS/400 system. > To my mind you would be far better off to get the whole bunch of 10x 4GB >drives (cheap to get) > for your 170 (thats the max it can hold) and then start an ASP balancing to >spread the data > over all drives (look at your percentages of disk usage, to "expensive" disks >aren't used at all). > > Regards, Philipp > > David Gibbs schrieb: > > > "Philipp Rusch" <Philipp.Rusch=pGRmi0hY2G3ucvZx32VAuQ@public.gmane.org> > > wrote in message 3D406B7A.F85BC161@rusch-edv.de">news:3D406B7A.F85BC161@rusch-edv.de... > > > Hello David, > > > you would need another two 8 GB drives to accomplish your task, > > > the AS/400 RAID algorythm needs 4 drives of equal type for a parity set. > > > So what your SE did was the best thing he could do a that time. > > > > # Type Size % used Protection > > > > 1 6607 4194 91.9 1 DPY > > > > 2 6607 3145 92.4 1 DPY > > > > What about unit #1? That's not the same size as the others... or is that > > because it's the load source? > > > > david >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.