Thank you all! :) I finally have all clear. I'm going to do raid 10. Any way, I'm going to do a benchmark before to install.
Thank you!;) 2014-02-24 14:03 GMT-03:00 Jarry <mr.ja...@gmail.com>: > On 24-Feb-14 7:27, Facundo Curti wrote: > > n= number of disks >> >> reads: >> raid1: n*2 >> raid0: n*2 >> >> writes: >> raid1: n >> raid0: n*2 >> >> But, in real life, the reads from raid 0 doesn't work at all, because if >> you use "chunk size" from 4k, and you need to read just 2kb (most binary >> files, txt files, etc..). the read speed should be just of n. >> > > Definitely not true. Very rarely you need to read just one small file. > Mostly you need many small files (i.e. compilation) or a few big files > (i.e. database). I do not know what load you expect, but in my case > raid0 (with SSD) gave me about twice the r/w speed on heavily-loaded > virtualization platform with many virtual machines. And not only speed > is higher, but also IOPS are splitted to two disks (nearly doubled). > > I did some testing with 2xSSD/512GB in raid1, 2xSSD/256GB in raid0 and > 3xSSD/256GB in raid5 (I used 840/pro SSD with quite good HW-controller > but I think with mdadm it might be similar). Raid0 was way ahead of > other two configurations in my case. > > Finally I went for 4xSSD/256GB in raid10 as I needed both speed and > redundancy... > > Jarry > > -- > _______________________________________________________________ > This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! > Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted. > >
