---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jack Taugher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:16:00 -0500
>> >For the OS / Mailboxes etc. I still want a fault tolerant set and was
>> >thinking about a 3 disk set running RAID 5.
>>
>> no, RAID 1, RAID5 is the slowest
>
>Are you talking about RAID5 in the sense of allowing the OS to control the
>array or using hardware to control the array?
>
>I've always found 3, 4, or 5 drives with hardware-based RAID to always have
>better writing/reading abilities than a software-based mirror configuration.
>
Its best to have a 3 or more disk RAID 5 array, hardware based. RAID 5 is much faster
than RAID 1, as it can read/write many disks at once. RAID 1 has good READ
performance, but the WRITE performance lacks.
I have my Imail on a RAID 5 array w/ parity on 4 18GB disks. That way one fails just
pop it out and replace it with another. While the machine is running. I had one drive
fail and this worked great.
Aaron Caviglia
VanTech.Net
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
