Re: Soft raid 10

"Steven Kurylo" writes:
> > > Now RAID 5 will always be quite slow
> >
> > hehe... I love generalizations like this... Please define "quite
> > slow" ;)
>
> quite slow as in, slower than taking the exact same array and changing
> it into a raid 10.

I guess I don't define anything slower than "RAID 10" as "quite slow" :)
"RAID 10" is "quite fast", and "quite expensive" (as compared to
RAID 5).

> > RAID 5 reads can be light-years faster than RAID 1 reads. So if your
> > data usage mix consists of mostly reads, you shouldn't discount
> > RAID 5... This becomes even more true when your IO mix is heavily
> > multi-threaded and where "more spindles" is (almost) always better...
>
> I'm not sure why you're bringing up raid 1 now.

Just so people don't forget about RAID 5 and always think about RAID 1
when building datastores. E.g. Don't forget about a RAID 0 set
where the components are RAID 5 sets...

Later...

Greg Oster
Received on Fri Jan 26 17:17:30 2007