Raid 5 vs Raid 1 - Whats the best for a PDC?

HI!
trying to replace my current PDC (windows 2000 advanced server) and debating to go Raid 1 or Raid 5.

It will only be used as the PDC and we have about 125 servers/pcs on our WAN.

Can you list the goods & bads of ea? and recommend?

Thanks!

ST
stststAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
There is no such thing as a PDC in Active Directory (Windows 2000/2003).  Everything is a DCs.

You simply don't need that much space for a domain controller.  A RAID 1 should be more than sufficient.

Of course, you SHOULD have TWO DCs to protect against failure.
0
fruhjCommented:
Raid 1 is cheaper, only needs 2 drives. Support is part of almost every motherboard out there now.
Cons: Raid 1 is not expandable - a mirror is a mirror

raid 5 often requires a special controller card, requires 3 drives (or more)
pros: Raid 5 can be expandable with the right controller, without needing to reinstall the server OS.

For a file server, database server, or mail server, I would reccomend raid 5.
For a fixed purpose server like DNS, PDC etc.. (where data volume is likely to never exceed the drives) then Mirroring is a fine way to go.
Note that you can also do mirroing in software, but You are far better off to do it at the BIOS/controller level,
0
VortexAdminCommented:
How many drives do you have or how many do you want to buy.  RAID 5 is faster but doubt it'll make that much of a difference.  I'd say save your money and go with RAID1 unless you ever intend to do anything else with the server.  On a network of 125, it seems a standalone DC would be kind of a waste anyway.  

The only bad to RAID 5 in comparison to RAID 1 is it takes more drives and sometimes more expensive hardware.  I guess gives off more heat could be another con since there's more drives but I'm guessing that won't matter to you so much.   Other than that it should be faster and more reliable.
0
The Ultimate Tool Kit for Technolgy Solution Provi

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy for valuable how-to assets including sample agreements, checklists, flowcharts, and more!

scrathcyboyCommented:
RAID 5 is prone to failure on disk loss or removal.  If you want a secure RAID with backup in the event of a failed disk or a removed/reinserted disk, by all means use RAID 1 -- a little slower, but worth it, in that each disk is a mirror, and independently sustainable regardless of the other disks condition.  I have lost many RAID 5s by removing and reinserting disks, but have never lost a RAID 1 array yet.
0
seehearCommented:
The main benefit to RAID 5 is read speed and data reliability.  If you use a good _HARDWARE_ RAID5 solution you will be able to recover from any of the drives dying with little drama.  In fact, enterprise RAID controllers will allow you to specify a hot spare that will automatically take over if one of the live drives goes down.  The down side to RAID 5 is space for dollar: you "lose" the capacity of one drive to parity. In other words, three 500 Gb drives will yield 1 TB; four drives will yield 1.5 and so on: Yield = (drive size x number of drives)-drive capacity.  Also, write speed suffers some what, compared to a RAID 1 config, but read speeds, especially multiple concurrent requests are much faster with the RAID5 config. For "normal" use SATA drives are fine, for high demand applications, use scsi drives - available up to 15k rpm spindle speeds.

I'm not sure what type of hardware and configuration scrathcyboy was using when he lost his data, but I would say my experience (more than ten years as head geek) is exactly the opposite of his: RAID5 is very good because it survive disks dying or being removed. Of course, you do have to know what you're doing , lol. And, I don't recommend software RAID5 solutions.
In enterpise environments, RAID5 is the most common configuration you will find for the reasons I specified.

When I build a server I use one physical drive as the system drive and (at least) 3 in a RAID5 config.  Details of equipmenrt and configuration vary by application,but these are from one I built recently to serve media: 1 raptor for the system drive, 3 seagate 750 gb drive in RAID5 to yield slightly less than 1.5 TB of filesystem space. The client wants the most reliability for her music collection of over two thousand albums (and growing), all ripped from her own CDs, an effort she is not interested in repeating.  It is overbuilt, to be sure, but she will not have reliability or saturation issues on her gigabit ethernet network.  I am a little concerned with the seagate drives because they seem to run very hot, but so far so good. Use plenty of fans and make sure cool air is available to the machines.

Hope this gives you the info you need to make the right choice for your application.

Regards,
James
0
VortexAdminCommented:
My only disagreement with the last post is that the RAID 5 space per dollar is better than RAID 1, not worse. It's true that you lose the capacity of a single drive to redundancy but you do with mirroring (RAID 1) as well.  And if you want to expand a RAID 5, you still only lose 1 drive to redundancy no matter how many you add.  If you have multiple mirrored drives, you would lose half of your total to redundancy.  So in comparison to RAID 1, this is not a downside.

For a DC I would not use a seperate system drive with RAID 5.  Put 3 drives together in a RAID 5 and partition a seperate virtual drive for the system files.  That way you have redundancy through the entire system which means no downtime during any drive failure.  That being said, I think I'd still save my money and go with RAID 1 for your purposes.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
VortexAdminCommented:
Did you not agree with our comparisons of RAID 1 and RAID 5?  Curious why you thought our answers deserved a grade of B.  You asked us simply to list the pros and cons and make a recommendation.  Not sure how you can even grade a recommendation?  With all the responses, was there information you think was left out or was not answered correctly?
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Storage

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.