[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Gordon Henderson wrote: > > So I'm putting together a small "High Availability" setup for a client > for a project they're running. It's a LAMPy type of server, so nothing > special there and it'll be 2 servers running MySQL replication and Linux > HA between then - again, nothing special there. > > But one thing I'm pondering over - 2 disks in each server or just one? > > Now this client is on a bit of a budget here and although disks aren't > that expensive, we could spend the £130 or so elsewhere (1TB in each box > and WDC drives are in the £60 range now) > > The server is going to the co-lo which is 4-5 hours away and normally > I'd not think twice about using 2 drives per server running in RAID-1 > (mirror) mode, but 2 servers gives us 2 drives... > > Hmmm... > > Any comments or thoughts welcome! Put a pair of drives in each. You know it makes sense. It's far easier and less time-consuming to recover a system that has a failed drive when you have a RAID1 mirror than it is should you have to re-install from scratch. It also avoids a single disk dying causing you to immediately have a single point of failure. If you put the second disk in each server, you'll make that back in the time you don't spend recovering stuff the first time a disk fails. (Given the availability of remote hands, I'd personally even be tempted to provide a spare drive so the remote hands could replace it to save me a ten-hour round trip.) James -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html