Re: R.A.I.D boxes
From: Daniel Jones <dmjones_at_ix.netcom.com>
Date: 12 Nov 1994 07:02:05 GMT
Message-ID: <3a1p9d$rb3_at_ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: 12 Nov 1994 07:02:05 GMT
Message-ID: <3a1p9d$rb3_at_ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
In <Cz2nHs.IKE_at_world.std.com> mew_at_world.std.com (Michael E Willett)
writes:
>
>RAID 3 fails on small reads and small writes and RAID 5 handles large and
>small writes poorly, while RAID 7 consistently outperforms the single
>spindle rate. The RAID 7 performance multiple increase over RAID 3 and
>RAID 5 is a function of the small read/small write/large write mix.
>
Michael's statement is an exercise in sematics, since his unspoken
assertion is that the assumed deficiencies of RAID 3 and RAID 5 are
based on uncached implementations.
Is it still necessary to state that RAID 5 performs large writes very well? Received on Sat Nov 12 1994 - 08:02:05 CET