Re: RAID 5 vs RAID 10 benchmark

From: Paul Drake <bdbafh_at_gmail.com>
Date: 26 Nov 2004 16:12:41 -0800
Message-ID: <910046b4.0411261612.5a6b1c3b@posting.google.com>

see_at_reply-to.invalid (Bruno Jargot) wrote in message news:<1gnvkn8.59mfua1rzpu5sN%see_at_reply-to.invalid>...
> 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. 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.

-bdbafh Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 18:12:41 CST