Raid 10 vs Raid 5 - Which is better for your NAS?

Рет қаралды 16,801

Күн бұрын

Short comparison video that compares all the aspects of RAID 10 vs RAID 5 to find out which is faster and which is better to use in your QNAP. We will go over the differences and test both the RAID 5 and RAID configurations using SSDs.
Equipment and gear used or mentioned in this episode. The links below are Amazon.com affiliate links. As an affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases:
===============
Affiliate Links
===============
Other QNAP Products I use:
Qnap TVS-951x NAS: amzn.to/2RtEfaX
Qnap TS-453B NAS: amzn.to/2JD9Q7D
QNAP TR-004: amzn.to/2LGBiSK
QNAP 12 Port Managed 10GbE switch: amzn.to/3td6XiV
Qnap 12 Port unmanaged 10GbE switch: amzn.to/2QhsDYF
Qnap 10Gbe NIC card: amzn.to/2JzaySY
QNAP QXG-10G1T: amzn.to/2Q8nHpq
QNAP QSW-308-1C (with combo port): amzn.to/2uVZ8Wf
QNAP QSW-308 (without combo port): amzn.to/38o9Jrk
QNAP QSW-M408-2C: amzn.to/35WuxbB
QNAP QDA-A2MAR: amzn.to/2J9PTpg
-------------------------------------
Chapters
0:00 Intro
00:26 Overview
00:50 RAID Comparison
03:19 Comparison Chart
05:00 RAID 10 Creation
06:45 Benchmarking
08:19 Summary

Пікірлер: 44

@ellhans 2 жыл бұрын

Excellent video. One thing that I've recently become aware of with regards to RAID5 and RAID6 is the notorious rates of URE failures during rebuilds when using most hard drives (which usually provide a 1 in 10^14 URE rate) To provide an example, lets say you had 4x4TB of WD Red or Ironwolf drives in a RAID5 configuration and one of these drives died and required a replacement... You then insert the new hard drive to replace the dead one. Well, during the rebuilding process that follows you will typically experience the RAID rebuild fail roughly 2 out of 3 times which almost renders the whole point of RAID5 useless. RAID10 doesn't experience this issue because it uses mirroring. So if you want to rely on RAID5, then keep the drives small (4TB maximum), keep the number of drives low (4 max) and keep the URE failure rate low (at least 1 in 10^15, for example using Ironwolf Pro's, instead of standard Ironwolf's). Using these rules you'll then see a RAID rebuild failure rate of 1 in 10, instead of 2 in 3. Which still isn't great but a huge improvement.

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

I am not sure where these URE rates came from as that is much, much higher than anything I have heard of or experienced. Though I always set my rebuild to the highest priority to minimize that possibility, I have personally not witnessed anywhere near this type of rate. My typical rebuild time (with only CMR drives) is around 20 hours so the odds of losing a second drive in that time is extremely low and with raid 6, even lower. That said, RAID has never been a back up which is why I use 3 NAS units along with an UNRAID server for backup. RAID 10 does make some sense in larger high-volume servers (10 or more drives) but IMO does not make sense in NAS boxes or smaller servers where throughput or database applications are not needed. Thanks for your input and perspective, it is appreciated.

@PswACC 2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeFaucher Those URE rates are provided by the manufacture of the hard drives in the product specifications .PDF

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

The high failure rates came from only SMR drives and were isolated. Today's rates are nowhere near this high.

@kimsonvu 2 жыл бұрын

Love your test and video. It is very helpful for me!

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

Awesome. Glad to hear that. Thanks for the feedback.

@unathorizdwatermelon Жыл бұрын

Very helpful and well explained. Thanks!

@MikeFaucher Жыл бұрын

Glad it was helpful! Thanks for the feedback.

@jasoncummings7052 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Much appreciated.

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

Glad it helped.

@mattcero1 2 жыл бұрын

Awesome testing Mike, thanks for doing this. I'm setting up a NAS now and will either make it a stand alone multi-bay device or add three drives to my Dell R610 and do RAID 5 whichever way I decide to go. Hey, quick question sir. Would you opt for configuring RAID 5 in the hardware controller or opt for the software solution offered by Windows Server 2016? Thanks again Mike and a total thumbs up.

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

In a windows server I would use RAID 5 hardware over any software solution. Thanks for the feedback.

@noismaster 2 жыл бұрын

You can lose more than 1 drive in raid 10. Drives are mirrored and then stripped. So you can lose one drive in each mirror. From 4 drive array, you can loos up to 2 drives. You can't lose both drives in the same mirror but you can lose a drive from both mirrors.

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

Very true but in a 4 bay NAS it is not worth it in my opinion. I would prefer to have a spared on the shelf at all times. I have 4 NAS units and try to use all the same drives and keep a couple of spares so I can react quickly. If you have a 20 drive array then absolutely I would do 10 or possibly a 6. Thanks for the input.

@noismaster 2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeFaucher How many drives did you have in RAID5? If you had 3 drives in RAID5 and 4 drives in RAID10 then that would somewhat explain the speed difference

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

@@noismaster Both were 4 drives. Thanks.

@NicolasSilvaVasault Ай бұрын

@@MikeFaucher what's the chance of losing two drives? that's when raid 10 comes to mind

@MikeFaucher Ай бұрын

@@NicolasSilvaVasault Everything is possible which is why any raid is not a back. You still need a good backup strategy regardless of raid level.

@donsylvester5275 3 жыл бұрын

Very good video Mike. Question: How does one calculate the required size of the parity drive versus the storage drives for RAID 5? Is there a formula? You seemed to keep adding storage in your diagram ... up to 8TB total ... without increasing the size of the parity drive? There must be a limit to storage size vs parity size?

@MikeFaucher 3 жыл бұрын

Great question. All drives in raid 5 have to be the same. Parity is distributed across all drives not just one like UNRAID which uses a single parity drive. Because parity is calculated across multiple drive it performs better than a single drive parity like UNRAID. Hope that helps.

@donsylvester5275 3 жыл бұрын

@@MikeFaucher OK ... understood. But the requirement that all drives be the same size for implementing RAID 5 is a point that I must have missed in your video? I'll buy a QNAP 464 soon after they're released and I'll install my 2 original 4TB HD's and whatever new 12(?) TB HD's I buy. So I couldn't use RAID 5 ... an important limitation!

@MikeFaucher 3 жыл бұрын

@@donsylvester5275 My suggestion is you get the new unit with at least 2 new drives (the first two drives) and copy the data via a network to the new unit. With only 2 drives, the new unit will only create a mirror but when you add the third drive of the same type later it will migrate and expand to a RAID 5 then you will be set. I would not try to reuse the current drives in the new NAS along with new drives but keep the older unit for critical data backup and keep it intact for a while. You can always sell later if you do not need it.

@donsylvester5275 3 жыл бұрын

Understood and agreed. I've already bought a 12TB Seagate External HD to use for the nightly local backup. I'll buy the 2 new 12 TB HD's (RAID 1) when the 464 is available. Key new NAS capability for me is 4K 60 FPS on HDMI. What's the point of having a NAS with my home videos if I can't show them easily on the TV? Can't understand how NAS manufacturers aren't seeming to understand this is a critical capability? Your thoughts? I'm hoping the HD shortages will ease in Q4 and pricing might be better then? Maybe you might do a 5 min video on the HD situation if you have insight there? As you suggest I'll keep my original 251+ system with 2 x 4TB HD's and 4TB local USB backup drive intact. Figure out best use later.

@MikeFaucher 3 жыл бұрын

@@donsylvester5275 Don't really have much insight on the drives shortage except the increase caused by CHIA. As for the HDMI comment, I agree but I am probably the wrong person to comment as all my NAS units have HDMI but I have never used it. Being a long time Plex user and before that windows media center, I have always used my NAS and servers for only storage and used a client. That said, that is not the common use case and I agree 100% that everyone should include it. One thing to also consider is that your NAS has to have the CPU to decode not just HDMI.

@johnbeaudin 9 ай бұрын

Hi Mike At 2:49 in the table, under the "Features" column, "performance" is mispelled. 2 rows lower, it shows "# of drives of drives" which doesn't parse for me. At 5:12 I think "terrabytes" is a mispelling. There were a few more problems. I liked the narrative.

@MikeFaucher 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for finding the issues I appreciate the feedback.

@kpetsas 6 ай бұрын

So you are saying that in a Raid array of 4 SSDs (Raid 5 or Raid 10), you always get single drive SSD write speeds (˜500MB/s)? So only read speeds would benefit from combining SSDs in a Raid array? Thank you

@MikeFaucher 6 ай бұрын

Close, with a the edge going to RAID 5. Remember this is going through a 10G network and these are SATA drives. If you have a faster NAS with NVMe drives the story may be different. I just did this to show that if you only have 4 drives, you should use RAID 5 to maximize your storage and results. If you are interested, I replicated this using TrueNAS and got very simalar results. Great question.

@davidputt4638 8 ай бұрын

Not completely accurate about the Raid 10 not being able to handle a 2nd drive failure. In a worse case scenario with 4 drives, there's only a 25 % chance that the 2nd drive that fails is one from the same pair as the first.

@MikeFaucher 8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the clarification and the feedback.

@einnortube 8 ай бұрын

Just to clarify, based on my research and experience, RAID 5 is generally faster than RAID1 and RAID0 is ideally the fastest, not the safest though. clarifications: Ideally- ( not bottle necked by any controller/cpu/interconnectivity ) Write Speed N - number of drives RAID0: N times slowest drive speed RAID1: 1x slowest drive speed (times the number of RAID1 pairs if there is a multiple pairs) RAID5: (N-1) times slowest drive speed Read Speed N - number of drives RAID0: N times slowest drive speed RAID1: 1x slowest drive speed ( times the number of RAID1 pairs if there is a multiple pairs) RAID5: (N) times slowest drive speed

@MikeFaucher 8 ай бұрын

RAID 0 is mainly used in a two drive configuration and not with multi-pairs and it has the same speed as a single drive. RAID 5 is faster than 1 and in my testing at least on a NAS offer the same speed as RAID 10 though 10 on paper should be faster.

@einnortube 8 ай бұрын

@@MikeFaucher - RAID0 could be more than 2 drives, in fact all your drive bays could be configured in RAID 0 setup. RAID 10 is a hybrid of RAID1 and RAID0, and can be more than 2 pairs of mirrored RAID0 configuration. RAID 1 or variant of it could not be faster than RAID5 even at the minimum required number of drives of each configuration and even more for multiple drives greater than the minimum number of drives per those 2 configurations, granting you are using the same drives for both of those configurations. For more clarifications, visit the Wikipedia for RAID - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels.

@MikeFaucher 8 ай бұрын

@@einnortube You are as I meant to say raid 1 in my response not raid 0. Thanks for catching that.

@nourestani 2 жыл бұрын

Raid5 is no good for SSD

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your input. With trim support on the NAS for SSDs I have not found that to be true. Have been raiding SSDs for years and had had great success.

@nourestani 2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeFaucher I'm going to go back to raid5 on my regular hard drives. The controllers that I'm using can have multiple spares as standby and it can kick in a rebuild on detection of failing drive. controllers with 512 MB of cache are good enough for even commercial use. HP makes good ones

@MikeFaucher 2 жыл бұрын

@@nourestani Good Choice!