-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx>
If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can
get very good throughput. If you're looking at read only / read
mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But
RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat
it.
I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives.
Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation?
I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where
there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance.
If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data
will happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail
the system can keep going. Giving you time to shut down and replace
the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace. I
just went through failed drives on Email server a few months ago. This
a case where i told the client the server is 5 years old time to
replace it about 3 months latter i get a call "the server is really
slow". It turned out 1 of the drives in the RAID 10 had failed. The
client allowed me to order a new server at that point. 