John R Pierce wrote:
raid50 requires 2 or more raid 5 volumes.
with 4 disks, thats just not an option.
for file storage (including backup files from a database), raid5 is
probably fine... for primary database tablespace storage, I'd only use
raid1 or raid10.
RAID-10 has only one perfect application, and that's with exactly four
disks. It can't use fewer, and the next larger step is 8, where other
flavors of RAID usually make more sense. But, for the 4-disk
configuration, it's unbeatable unless you need capacity more than speed
and redundancy. (In that case, you go with RAID-5.)
RAID-10 gives the same redundancy as RAID-50: guaranteed tolerance of a
single disk lost, and will tolerate a second disk lost at the same time
if it's in the other half of the RAID. RAID-10 may also give better
performance than RAID-50. I'm not sure because you're trading off more
spindles against more parity calculation with the RAID-50. At any rate,
RAID-10 shouldn't be *slower*.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
