RAID 5+0 question

[ImNotThere]

on a 500tb (50x 10tb) storage server with 10 parity, there would be 400tb usuable, correct?

How does it work exactly? with 100tb for redundancy that would imply 10 raid sets with 1 drive each for redundancy but as far as i was aware the raid sets were 4 drives?

so with 10 redundancy drives there should be 30 usable drives? that leaves 100tb for redundancy with only 300tb usable? where does the extra 100tb go? is that for the raid 0 portion of the 5+0? 

I guess as a follow up question if thats correct does that mean any data stored in the raid 0 drives would be lost on failure?

[Electronics Wizardy]

15 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

on a 500tb (50x 10tb) storage server with 10 parity, there would be 400tb usuable, correct?

in theory yea.

 

16 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

How does it work exactly? with 100tb for redundancy that would imply 10 raid sets with 1 drive each for redundancy but as far as i was aware the raid sets were 4 drives?

There are multiple ways to set it up, with 50 drives, id probably do raid 60, on a 10 drives wide raid6, but depends on how you want to to it and your goals. This example uses 10x 5 disk raid 5, but id go 6 as the chance of failure is lower

 

17 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

so with 10 redundancy drives there should be 30 usable drives? that leaves 100tb for redundancy with only 300tb usable? where does the extra 100tb go? is that for the raid 0 portion of the 5+0? 

in raid 50, the raid levels are stacked, so in this case there would be 10 raid 5 arrays of 5 drives, all of those would be in raid 0

 

17 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

I guess as a follow up question if thats correct does that mean any data stored in the raid 0 drives would be lost on failure?

If you lose a raid 5 array, you would lose all the data, so you can lose up to 10 drives, but only one in each raid 5. If you lose 2 drives on any raid 5 all the data is lost.

[ImNotThere]

12 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

<snip>

Thankyou very much, this is all the information i needed

I thought raid 6 was more computationally heavy?

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, ImNotThere said:

Thankyou very much, this is all the information i needed

I thought raid 6 was more computationally heavy?

a little bit, but normally your not limited by the computation in raid with hdds. The raid cards and software raid is made to handle ssds which are much faster, so hdds aren't a issue?

 

Are you actually building this or is this for theory? A lot of this depends on the exact hardware you using as every raid software and hardware does it a bit differently.

[ImNotThere]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Are you actually building this or is this for theory? A lot of this depends on the exact hardware you using as every raid software and hardware does it a bit differently.

half and half, I plan to build a storage server with 50tb so scaled down but the 500tb is theoretical for some research, appreciate your help

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, ImNotThere said:

half and half, I plan to build a storage server with 50tb so scaled down but the 500tb is theoretical for some research, appreciate your help

Home server build then?

 

For a home server id normally just go with a raid 6. The array isn't big enough to need a raid 50/60 and normally your network limited, so speed won't help much eiter, but depends on use.