In my experience running on MS SQL server databases and AcuODBC (AIX UNIX)
databases, with RAID arrays have 8 to 16 drives with 1TB to 4TB of total
storage.
RAID 0+1
In normal operation it performs slightly better (50 to 80 Mb sustained
throughput better) than RAID 5 array with the same drive sizes and number of
drives.
Upon failure the RAID 0+1 continues without any loss of performance, where
RAID 5 losses about 50% of its performance (total throughput).
NOTE: RAID 0+1 is not RAID 10 (1+0)
You are correct RAID is not backup
its continued operation upon
a drive failure.
In my environment performance during a loss of a drive is most important
the cost pre GB is not the major consideration.
Christopher Checca
Packard Transport, Inc.
IT Department
24021 South Municipal Dr
PO Box 380
Channahon, IL. 60410
815 467 9260
815 467 6939 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.packardtransport.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert E. Spivack
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:06 PM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] New Server Specs
So why use RAID 0+1 ? Costs more, performs less, adds only slightly more
reliability (data should be backed anyone and no RAID should be fully
trusted)
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
