On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 10:33 +1200, Solor Vox wrote: > 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. You state this as fact... I find it strange, both from theory and experience. A random, fairly recent article ( yeah, it's not brilliant, but... )
http://www.myhostnews.com/2008/09/optimizing-raid-performance-bencmarks/ suggests that, while RAID 5 may be fastest with sequential reads, greatly is an exaggeration of the difference. As I said before, you need to suck it and see with your own hardware setup, and loading ( things like memory available for caching may make a huge difference for example ). Steve -- Steve Holdoway <[email protected]> http://www.greengecko.co.nz MSN: [email protected] GPG Fingerprint = B337 828D 03E1 4F11 CB90 853C C8AB AF04 EF68 52E0
