Hi Brenda,
I'd recommend you at least have the option of RAID 0+1.
We use a combination of RAID 0+1 and RAID 5. The data that's heavily
accessed goes on RAID 0+1 volumes and the less-busy stuff goes on RAID
5.
Other things to consider are the amount of RAM installed (systems fly
when entire
We are looking at a new server for our future needs (approximately 2nd
quarter 2008) and Dell is recommending a RAID 6. Currently we are on
UniVerse 10.1 but will probably go to 10.2 on the new server using
RedHat Linux (whatever version suits our needs and is available at that
time).
For the
RAID 6 just adds an extra distributed parity stripe to RAID 5, which does
make it a bit more fault-tolerant. It can withstand the loss of two drives
simultaneously, as opposed to a single drive with RAID 5.
If you really want both a belt and suspenders, go with RAID 6+1, which will
mirror the
Brenda,
Stick with Raid 10 and as many drives as possible. It has a the performance
advantage of mirrored disks for reads and no penalty for writes.
The only downside that I see is that it is the most expensive; but what the
heck, nowadays disk is cheap and racks are big.
My 0.02.
/Scott
Brenda Price wrote:
We are looking at a new server for our future needs (approximately 2nd
quarter 2008) and Dell is recommending a RAID 6.
[ ... snipped ... ]
We currently have RAID 1+0.
In terms of performance RAID-6 (and RAID-5) are bad ideas for database
servers. Database servers do a
We are looking at a new server for our future needs (approximately 2nd
quarter 2008) and Dell is recommending a RAID 6. Currently we are on
UniVerse 10.1 but will probably go to 10.2 on the new server using
RedHat Linux (whatever version suits our needs and is available at that
time).
For the
