RAID 1 vs RAID 5 on a Server ...

[YeOldeStonecat]

RAID 5 has faster read times than RAID 1, but slower write times....which is why it is not good for hosting databases.

I'd go RAID 1 / RAID 1
Or if it's a larger law firm (we don't know how large it is)...RAID 1 / RAID 10. Or better yet...a separate server. have a DC..and then have a separate file/app/print server.

 

[brandonkick]

Money for a law firm should be no issue, unless they got their law degrees from
McDonalds. Most charge a bare minimum of $200 per hour with it not uncommon
to see rates easily double that and higher.

The few hundred dollars to go raid 1 / raid 10 shouldn't matter in the least bit to them.

 

[fencepost]

I can't imagine going with RAID5 for anything these days, though RAID6 for storage or lower speed requirements sure. I also can't imagine doing RAID 10 without having a hot spare. For responsiveness I'd also always lean towards the 2.5" drives over 3.5" drives - at the same speed the 2.5" should have significantly better latency though I believe they'll have lower throughput.

 

[trevm999]

I also can't imagine doing RAID 10 without having a hot spare.

RAID 10 or RAID 1 / RAID 1 the wrong two drives fail and you're in trouble

RAID 6 if two drives fail the rebuild is as risky as a RAID 5

 

[fencepost]

RAID 10 or RAID 1 / RAID 1 the wrong two drives fail and you're in trouble

RAID 6 if two drives fail the rebuild is as risky as a RAID 5

Right..... With a hot spare in place, your time during which a single-drive failure takes you out is minimized. I'd rather have the hot spare go live and be waiting for shipping on a new hot spare than have a drive fail and be waiting on shipping of a new production drive while hoping to not lose another.

Everything I've ever heard also indicates that at least for RAID6 performance takes a significant hit when the array is in a degraded state, not just during rebuilds. A quick search turned up this of interest, though it's a bit dated: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/adaptec-serial-controllers,1806-10.html

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Money for a law firm should be no issue, unless they got their law degrees from
McDonalds. Most charge a bare minimum of $200 per hour with it not uncommon
to see rates easily double that and higher.

The few hundred dollars to go raid 1 / raid 10 shouldn't matter in the least bit to them.

You'd think so....but in my experience....lawyers are tighter than a gnats arse when it comes to cracking open their own wallets. I've had over half a dozen law firm clients, and only 1 was a good client that let me put in what I recommended. The others.....always a huge..huge..uphill battle to get them to spend on proper stuff.

 

[Markverhyden]

People seem to focus on their hourly rates. Like what you hear about the medical business. Very few of them really bill out a full work week. I've done some work for lawyers in the past. Always late paying. One woman I knew who worked for one told me many of them, especially sole practitioners, live lawsuit to lawsuit. In fact that was how she paid my bill, 4 months late. Called me and said a settlement check had come in from an insurance company, she was paying me first as she was quitting and knew I would never get paid.