Cost Considerations for RAID 1 and RAID 10 Implementations

The cost considerations for RAID 1 and RAID 10 primarily revolve around disk usage efficiency and hardware requirements, as both use mirroring for data protection but differ in complexity and capacity utilization.

• RAID 1 mirrors data between two disks, so you effectively pay double for usable storage capacity (e.g., two 1TB drives yield 1TB usable space). This makes RAID 1 relatively costly per gigabyte because half of the total disk space is reserved for redundancy.

• RAID 10 combines mirroring and striping, requiring at least four disks. Like RAID 1, it uses half of the total disk capacity for mirroring, so usable capacity is also halved (e.g., six 1TB disks yield 3TB usable space). However, RAID 10 offers better performance and fault tolerance than RAID 1 but at a higher total disk cost due to the minimum disk count and complexity.

Additional cost factors include:

• Hardware and firmware support: RAID 10 often requires more advanced RAID controllers (from vendors like LSI, Adaptec, Dell PERC), which can increase upfront costs but improve performance and reliability.

• Rebuild times and maintenance: RAID 10 generally has faster rebuild times and supports hot swapping, potentially reducing downtime costs compared to RAID 1.

• Performance vs. capacity trade-off: RAID 10 delivers superior read/write speeds and fault tolerance but at the expense of higher disk costs and lower effective capacity, making it suitable for environments where performance and uptime justify the investment.

In summary, RAID 1 is simpler and less costly in terms of hardware but less performant, while RAID 10 demands more disks and controller sophistication, increasing cost but offering better performance and resilience. The choice depends on budget, required capacity, performance needs, and tolerance for downtime.