Warren Young wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
raid50 requires 2 or more raid 5 volumes.
with 4 disks, thats just not an option.
for file storage (including backup files from a database), raid5 is
probably fine... for primary database tablespace storage, I'd only use
raid1 or raid10.
RAID-10 has only one perfect application, and that's with exactly four
disks. It can't use fewer, and the next larger step is 8, where other
flavors of RAID usually make more sense. But, for the 4-disk
configuration, it's unbeatable unless you need capacity more than
speed and redundancy. (In that case, you go with RAID-5.)
RAID-10 gives the same redundancy as RAID-50: guaranteed tolerance of
a single disk lost, and will tolerate a second disk lost at the same
time if it's in the other half of the RAID. RAID-10 may also give
better performance than RAID-50. I'm not sure because you're trading
off more spindles against more parity calculation with the RAID-50.
At any rate, RAID-10 shouldn't be *slower*.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
It seems like you know / like RAID-10 a lot :)
So, how does it perform with 6 discs for example? Say I have 3 HDD's in
RAID-0, and another 3 in RAID-0, then RAID-1 the 2 RAID-0 stripes. How
well would that work?
And what would you recommend on 8 / 10 HDD's?
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
CEO, SoftDux
Web: http://www.SoftDux.com
Check out my technical blog, http://blog.softdux.com for Linux or other technical stuff, or visit http://www.WebHostingTalk.co.za for Web Hosting stuff
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
