Hi Bryce, > My experience with RAID is all from windows - but it may translate to > Linux. > I would have ask why not use Hardware RAID (unless not available) so in > the OS all your dealing with is a single disk setup rather than all this > software RAID complication? > > As a side note on the Informix list I watch it is repeatedly said not to > use RAID 5 if you can - explanation here: > http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt > > Regards, > Bryce Stenberg.
While hardware controllers do often "hide" the values discussed, they still apply and changing your partitions and file systems to align with these will greatly improve performance. Yes, people debate the RAID5 vs RAID10 all day. RAID10 doesn't have the "write hole" that RAID5 does, it can also lose up to N/2 drives and still work, rebuilding is much faster, and it gives better write performance. So for someone who need more security of data and writes a lot, then RAID10 is better. However, RAID5 has better cost/GB ratio (N-1 vs N/2 for RAID10) and greatly out performs RAID10 on reads. Much of my data (2TB of DVDs) will be read only. So as always, use the tool that works best for the job at hand. I'm not saying RAID5 is always better then RAID10, just that it's best tool for my needs in this setup. Cheers, sV
