Nikolay Ulyanitsky wrote:
I can not comment on "most vendors" but for the PROGRESS RDBMS RAID5
is definitely not recommended. It will work but you will see a
significant reduction in performance. We strongly recommend that our
clients go with RAID10 (as in RAID 1+0). In-house we only use RAID10.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
William Warren wrote:
I'm not a fan of RAID 5 at all since it can only tolerate one failure at
all. Go with raid 10 or something like that which is able to handle
more than one failure. Intermittent, uncorrectable sector failures
during rebu
> I can not comment on "most vendors" but for the PROGRESS RDBMS RAID5
> is definitely not recommended. It will work but you will see a
> significant reduction in performance. We strongly recommend that our
> clients go with RAID10 (as in RAID 1+0). In-house we only use RAID10.
+1
Write performanc
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> From: Ross S. W. Walker Sent: May 25, 2008 08:56
> >
> > Typically most vendors recommend a two-prong approach, keep the
> > database data files on a RAID5/RAID6 type array and keep the
> > log files on a RAID10 array.
> >
>
> I can not comment on "most vendors" but
From: Ross S. W. Walker Sent: May 25, 2008 08:56
>
> Typically most vendors recommend a two-prong approach, keep the
> database data files on a RAID5/RAID6 type array and keep the
> log files on a RAID10 array.
>
I can not comment on "most vendors" but for the PROGRESS RDBMS RAID5
is definitely
Christopher Chan wrote:
> William Warren wrote:
> > I'm not a fan of RAID 5 at all since it can only tolerate one failure at
> > all. Go with raid 10 or something like that which is able to handle
> > more than one failure. Intermittent, uncorrectable sector failures
> > during rebuilds are b
William Warren wrote:
I'm not a fan of RAID 5 at all since it can only tolerate one failure at
all. Go with raid 10 or something like that which is able to handle
more than one failure. Intermittent, uncorrectable sector failures
during rebuilds are becoming an increasing problem with today's
I'm not a fan of RAID 5 at all since it can only tolerate one failure at
all. Go with raid 10 or something like that which is able to handle
more than one failure. Intermittent, uncorrectable sector failures
during rebuilds are becoming an increasing problem with today's drives.
Rudi Ahlers
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-22-2008 9:58 PM Bahadir Kiziltan spake the following:
You need at least 6 drives for RAID5. I don't know if Perc 4e/Di
allows configuring the RAID5.
Where did you get this bit of information? You can create a raid 5
with 3 or more disks.
--
9 matches
Mail list logo