What RAID array to organize for fault tolerance?

Question

JavaScript

Hello.
Windows Server 2012. Ability to put 4 disks.
AD, 1C and CRM
Now: Two disks on the server: C and D. SQL database backups are written to disk D
What you need: What if D falls down? You need to make the least expensive array with a mirror and a high write speed, because there are a lot of backups.
RAID 1, they say, is normal, but the read speed is low there.

Answer 1

Something all mixed together. Either we are talking about fault tolerance, or about backups.

RAID 1, they say, is normal, but the read speed is low there.

Who said that? What is it low compared to? The read speed in this array is higher than that of a single disk, or equal to it.

Two disks on the server: C and D. SQL database backups are written to disk D

Pretty illiterate organization of backups. Backups should be stored on another machine at least.

What if D falls? You need to make the least expensive array with a mirror and a high write speed, because there are a lot of backups.

What's so terrible about falling? Stopping work or losing data.
That is, if the danger is in stopping work, then you need to organize fault tolerance, for example, using RAID 1.
If the danger is in data loss, then you just need to make backups and no raids.
And since when do you need a high write speed for backups? Usually, the slowest disks are used for backups.

Answer 2

To store backups on the same server where they are made is a cant of this size.
RAID5 is enough to store backups, purely for reasons of saving disk space for RAID.
RAID1 (aka "mirror") will be equal in volume to the sum of all disks, divided by two. RAID5 in terms of volume will be (number of disks - 1) * the volume of one disk. In the case of 3 disks on RAID5, you will have 66% of the total volume of all disks. In the case of 4 disks - will be 75% percent. RAID1 will always eat up 50% of the total volume of all disks. RAID1 can be written down on 2 disks. RAID5 -- you need at least 3.

Answer 3

Once there are 4 disks, then RAID 5 or 10.
Backups do not care about reading?

Answer 4

Just in 1 raid, the read speed is high, and the write speed is low.
I would advise to put ssd and 10 reyd under backups.

Answer 5

For the database it is better to use RAID 10

Answer 6

RAID5 + one disk for other needs, but it is worth noting that the 1C server on the same machine with AD is a bit unnatural

Answer 7

Well, it happened to me: the chief accountant kept the 1C salary base on her computer on disk D (such as confidential information, the director’s order, I didn’t know at all), regularly made backups, put them (!!!!) on the same disk D. One fine evening, she was about to count her next salary, and this disk took and died .... Result: 3 days of hassle, $ 400 money, another disk like the donor - the 1C base and most of her documents were restored, salary counted and delivered on time.
" @bARmaleyKA
And how much money do they give for this?
@font
8 thousand euros"
No need to put all your eggs in one basket.
What is the task? To ensure the recovery of information in the event of an accident within a reasonable time frame? Then:
1. Buy a second exactly the same server. Put 1 disk more on it than on the first one.
2. Organize a backup of data from the first server to the second one on an additional disk.
3. Make the second server DC too.
4. In case of disk failure on the first server, take a spare disk from the shelf and restore it from the backup.
5. If the motherboard on the first server dies, transfer the disks to the second server, and it is ready to go.
6. If the first server DIES AT ALL - restore it on the second of the backups.