Re: RAID5

On modern SANs that RAID 5 is often fronted by a TB of RAM and that eliminates many of the apparent performance bottlenecks.

My chuckle is what happens when the second drive goes out of the RAID 5 configuration before the SAN gets a chance to auto-heal. It is a sad chuckle.

/Hans

On 15/11/2011 3:12 PM, Tim Gorman wrote:
> There has not been any "breakthrough" in RAID5 technology, and advances
> in HDD throughput (if any) or caching will improve both RAID5 and RAID10
> together.
> I've been in meetings where the storage sales rep, when asked about the
> performance of RAID5 vs RAID10, dismissively waves his hand and snorts,
> "That's old news", which is true, but doesn't answer the question.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
>
> On 11/15/2011 2:54 PM, Karl Arao wrote:
>> I've encountered a scenario before where the customer allocated
>> 5 LUNs for the DATA
>> and 4 LUNs for the RECO
>> and then I asked him the RAID configuration behind those LUNs.. and he
>> told me that the DATA are RAID5, then the RECO are RAID10..
>>
>> well, I don't want to "argue" which one is better or faster but I let
>> our decisions based on facts,numbers,figures
>>
>> Since we are just on the build stage of the RAC environment.. I
>> insisted that we run some benchmarks against the RAID5 and RAID10
>> disks and whatever the results of the benchmarks will decide where we
>> will place the DATA diskgroup.. luckily he has an open mind..
>>
>> apparently the RAID10 was 2x faster..
>>
>> See the results here
>> http://karlarao.tiddlyspot.com/#%5B%5BRAID5%20and%20RAID10%20comparison%5D%5D
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Arao
>> karlarao.wordpress.com<http://karlarao.wordpress.com>
>> karlarao.tiddlyspot.com<http://karlarao.tiddlyspot.com>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l