|
Nope. Note that twice as much data is written
with 0+1, compared to only N/(N-1) with 5. So data transfer would be
higher with 5.
RAID 5 is less fault tolerant, uses fewer disks,
and is generally higher performing, as portions of the data can be read/written
from all disks in the array at the same time.
Darin. ----- Original Message -----
From: Robert E. Spivack
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Isnt their chart wrong? It
shows RAID 5 as very high and very high while RAID 0+1 is only high and
very high which would seem to indicate RAID 5 is better and uses less
disks. Looks like a typo ??? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Checca Heres a good high
level view of RAID levels
http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html I use their 8 drive
SATA SCSI interface units with RAID 0+1 with my SQL servers and RS/6000 AIX
servers. Performance is two to three times any DELL or IBM raid
arrays Ive used. Please note in real
world usage Ive seen RAID 0+1 well out run any RAID 10
array. Christopher Checca -----Original
Message----- Hello
All: I haven't gotten any responses to any of my
other questions that I've sent to the group, hopefully this one
will. I'm trying to spec out a new server and had
a question for the group in regard to HDD configuration. What kind of RAID
setup works best on a mid-size Imail installation? Is RAID-1 acceptable or
is RAID-5 recommended? Also, would 15K RPM disks make a huge difference as
opposed to 10K RPM disks? Thanks, Jim
Frasch |
- Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Martin Schaible
- Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Darin Cox
- Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Matt
- RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Robert E. Spivack
- RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Christopher Checca
- Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Matt
- RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Spec... Christopher Checca
- Re: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs Darin Cox
