>For caching disks:- >in order of preference for performance >1)volume(best, unless your data REALLY critical, then >go down the list) >2)raid 1(mirror, very costly) >3)raid 5 >4)raid 0(i was surprised when i first heard it, can't >quite remember the reason)
How can RAID0 have worse performance than RAID5? RAID0 was designed to optimize disk write performance by striping writes across multiple disks. I would think that RAID0 would at least outperform RAID1. Do you have any benchmark data on this? Adam
