# RAID 0 vs multiple path.data in ES 2.4.0

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [November 19, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630 "2016-11-19T21:01:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![avaneeshr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@avaneeshr](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/avaneeshr)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630/1 "2016-11-19T21:01:28Z")

</div>

Hi everyone.  
I have a 3-data-node ES cluster, hosted in the cloud (AWS). All three nodes have identical config and hardware resources. I am using three `general purpose (GP2) SSDs` in the following config on each box: 1TB + 300 GB + 75 GB = 1.375TB. path.data setting includes folders mounted on the three different drives.

The elasticsearch docs say, that using a RAID 0 (striped) configuration will give increased throughput, even on SSDs.

My question is, would moving from a config where I specify multiple path.data to a RAID 0 config make sense?  
Does being on AWS make a difference?

Using ES 2.4.0. Usage is easy on indexing, but very, very heavy search loads. (thousands of QPS)

Thank you in advance!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![warkolm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/warkolm/32/39224_2.png) [@warkolm](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/warkolm)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630/2 "2016-11-20T01:40:36Z")

</div>

Given the drives are of uneven size, moving to multiple paths won't be worth it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![avaneeshr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@avaneeshr](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/avaneeshr)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 6:51am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630/3 "2016-11-20T06:51:28Z")

</div>

Thanks for the reply Mark.  
If I change my disk arrangement to having 400G x 4 = 1.6T, would that change things?  
Can you explain why the uneven size of drives make a difference?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![warkolm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/warkolm/32/39224_2.png) [@warkolm](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/warkolm)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 7:29am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630/4 "2016-11-20T07:29:45Z")

</div>

Yes it will help.

ES stores all shards on a node across all paths evenly, therefore you are restricted to the smallest disk size.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2016, 7:30am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/raid-0-vs-multiple-path-data-in-es-2-4-0/66630/5 "2016-12-18T07:30:02Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.