Re: RAID5
From: Connor McDonald <mcdonald.connor_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:06:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CAB=aETCBpTrxn6ovarajgagfPu07WY7Xs68K9YcCQmDnnyqe7Q_at_mail.gmail.com>
(drive failures and other boundary conditions aside) I've found that its rarely the disk configuration nowadays that really matters (my currently clients being a mix of software raid, hardware raid, raid-10, raid-5, raid-dp, the list goes on). Its much more the piping between storage and server, the CPU grunt on the storage, and to a lesser extent, the CPU grunt on the server, that seems to make all the difference.
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:06:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CAB=aETCBpTrxn6ovarajgagfPu07WY7Xs68K9YcCQmDnnyqe7Q_at_mail.gmail.com>
(drive failures and other boundary conditions aside) I've found that its rarely the disk configuration nowadays that really matters (my currently clients being a mix of software raid, hardware raid, raid-10, raid-5, raid-dp, the list goes on). Its much more the piping between storage and server, the CPU grunt on the storage, and to a lesser extent, the CPU grunt on the server, that seems to make all the difference.
Maybe I've just been lucky, and my clients are sufficiently "spindled up" for that to be the case.... dunno. But they all seem to have a lot of I/O throughput that it subsequently strangled somewhere up the line :-)
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Nov 17 2011 - 18:06:52 CST