Re: RAID 5 vs RAID 10 benchmark

From: Bruno Jargot <see_at_reply-to.invalid>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:46:12 +0100
Message-ID: <1gnwtvg.5egtwu75nmjcN%see@reply-to.invalid>

Paul Drake wrote:

> Bruno Jargot) wrote
> > Frank van Bortel <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Basic message: RAID10 (or 1+0) is *safer* than RAID5,
> > > because you can *never* loose 2 disks in RAID5 without
> > > serious disruption (involving restoring of backups).
> >
> > With an array of 7 disks in RAID 5 and 1 disk in spare, you're living
> > dangerously only for the duration of the array rebuild.
> > I think this configuration has a pretty good redundancy / price rapport.
>
> 16 GB of cache in front of 8 disks. Uh huh.

The cache is in front of several RAID arrays. 7 Arrays in the IBM test.

> I think that one could safely say that "the ROI would suck" -
> regardless of whether you have those disks arranged in a RAID 5 or
> RAID 10 config.
>
> or maybe you're no longer discussing the benchmark.

I've just described the configuration used in the IBM test. Received on Sat Nov 27 2004 - 05:46:12 CST