Re: RAID 5 performance

In <46eoe6$e8v_at_ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> rstrouss_at_ix.netcom.com writes:

>Paul Baumgartel <paulb_at_pcnet.com> wrote:
 

>>I've just done a direct comparison of RAID 5 and non-RAID disk configurations.
>>All disks are mounted on the same CPU, a Digital Alpha running OpenVMS 6.1. The

<snip>

>>YMMV, but this makes it pretty clear to me that, for this application at least, RAID
>>5 is not the way to go. Next I'm going to test RAID 0+1 (striped and mirrored), and
>>I'll post the results.
 

>We're setting up a RAID 5 envirronment on an HP 9000 box and I'm
>hoping the 32 meg cache will minimize the problem that you're
>encountering in your situation.

Raid 5 without caching in not a valid comparison, of course its abysmal. If you have caching and data coalesing on separate hardware, the difference, if any, should be negligable.

Duncan Received on Wed Oct 25 1995 - 00:00:00 CET