Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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 have the following configuration: simple video surveillance system (server 1: recording past 24h; server 2: recording past 30 days). I am primarily using the content on the 24h storage, while I recompress and archive the following 30 days on the other server.

My idea is to use RAID 1+0 for server 1 (for better performance & reliability) and RAID5 for server 2 (for lower cost). Is this a good plan or there are better alternatives to this architecture? Thanks.

share|improve this question
We can't really answer your question as we do not know the type of drives used, the amount of drives for each configuration and the size of your drives. – Lucas Kauffman Sep 24 '12 at 10:21
12 disks X 500 GB, but the number may be increased/decreased depending on the optimal cost-effective architecture advised. – Lupo Sep 24 '12 at 10:37
What I/O will the video streams generate (recording and playback), and what I/O will the RAID subsystems provide? – Ansgar Wiechers Sep 24 '12 at 11:05
The streams will generate chunks of compressed video files, which are accessed through a specific video management software (for playback). The recording is practically non-stop. – Lupo Sep 24 '12 at 11:20
I need the exact amount of disks for each Array, how many disks will you use in your RAID 5 and in your RAID 10 – Lucas Kauffman Sep 24 '12 at 11:40
up vote 0 down vote accepted

According to your comments, you're using 5400 or 7200 RPM drives. In this scenario, on local storage, I'd recommend either RAID 6 or RAID 10. RAID 10 is not much of a gain in redundancy, so I'd go RAID 6 for both groups. There is a write overhead on RAID 6 that doesn't exist on RAID 10, however since you're doing mostly sequential writes, it will not interfere.

share|improve this answer
What do you think about RAID50? Does RAID6 provide better performance? – Lupo Sep 24 '12 at 14:37
RAID 6 allows you to lose two drives instead of one, but for reads, it's the same performance. RAID 50 is multiple RAID 5s with volumes striped across them, but you still only get the performance of the underlying disk. A RAID 50 made of two RAID 5s of 5 disks each will have the same read performance as a RAID 5 or 6 of 10 disks. – Basil Sep 24 '12 at 20:07
Write performance on RAID 6 is about the same as RAID 5 or RAID 10 (or RAID 50), unless you do small block, non-sequential writes. – Basil Sep 24 '12 at 20:10

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.