At some point in time, a disk will fail. It is the performance of the
array during recovery that is very different between RAID5/6 and RAID10,
as to recover one drive in RAID5/6 you need to read from a lot of
drives. Also with RAID10, you can have multiple drives fail and as long
as they aren't the mirrored pairs the array will keep running.
In my opinion the cost of the extra drives is well worth the performance
and stability of the array. And if you want true redundancy you need to
consider that a hardware RAID controller is a single point of failure.
In situations I need the system to keep running I often run two disk
controllers with different brands (or batches) of hard disks, with each
side of the mirrored pairs on opposite controllers. It means I have to
run software RAID but for RAID10 it's not an issue.
Just an aside, as I see the OP is not concerned with disk performance
(although from my tests that was the limiting factor)
Rod K wrote:
The performance limitations of RAID5 or 6 vs RAID10 are mitigated by
the number of spindles. If you have 8 or more drives in your array,
the performance difference disappears. This, of course assumes a true
hardware RAID controller and NOT software.
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
