On 9 April 2010 10:58, Steve Holdoway <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
Geez, you'd think I posted about using a windows box or something, so many people going after the thing I didn't ask. O.o I've tested myself and found RAID5 to be better for large file reads. But don't take my word for either. Do your own research or see a few others here: http://kendalvandyke.blogspot.com/2009/02/disk-performance-hands-on-part-5-raid.html http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9039994#post9039994 People go back and forth all day debating about types of RAID. Generally it's accepted fact that RAID5 is better for reads, and RAID10 for writes. But you are also forgetting lots of other factors that you didn't have information on such as: Case: Only has room for 4 drives (M-ATX) PSU: More drives requires larger power supply Cost: RAID10 requires 6 where RAID5 will only take 4 for the same space. Motherboard: M-ATX board with 6 SATA, but one for blu-ray drive and only pci-e slot for tv capture card. I realize that you guys feel strongly about RAID10, but I wasn't really asking for opinions on it. :p Just on file system, partition, and RAID alignment. Give me some credit that I've consider all the factors and went with what I thought was best for my needs. Cheers, sV
