Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I like to use a 10TB RAID5 setup as a single partition on a file server for distributing user HOME via NFS in our network. As I have no experience on such large disk I like to know the Pros and CONS on that.

Interesting would be

How long does a RAID rebuild would take on disk failure?
How long does an fsck last on such large disks?
What performance penalty do I need to except from the size of the partition compared to smaller ones?
Would you rather recommend using smaller partitions and adopt nfs setup?

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I would recommend staying far away from RAID 5 for such a large volume. RAID 10 will perform better, rebuild faster, and have a much lower chance of a URE during rebuild. RAID 5 should be avoided at all costs here.

share|improve this answer
But with raid10 I would loose much of my storage space. I currently have 6 * 2TB for building the raid. RAID10 would result in 6TB storage rather than 10TB as in RAID5. Isn't there a intermediate solution? What about a RAID6? – Justin Sep 3 '11 at 13:48
If you don't care about performance, RAID 6 is an OK compromise. If you care about performance, rebuild times, and rebuild reliability, then your only real choice is R10. – MDMarra Sep 3 '11 at 13:54
Okay, thanks for that recommendation. Any remark on large partitions? – Justin Sep 3 '11 at 14:00
Typically, more partitions on the same physical volume decrease performance. If you don't need the volume partitioned for logical separation, then there's no need to partition it. – MDMarra Sep 3 '11 at 14:05

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.