Ed McNierney wrote: > > Third, I do agree that fast RAID 5 disks and lots of RAM are always a good > idea! >
Yes, for working with large data sets, more memory is in most cases likely to be more important than a faster CPU. But to speak out against sweeping generalizations, I wouldn't necessarily agree that RAID 5 is always a good idea. There are pros and cons, and it depends on your circumstances. If I remember right (and it's been a while since I studied the details), the biggest downside of RAID 5 is that small writes are slower, because of the need to write both the data disk and the parity disk. With most RAID controllers I believe (there might be exceptions) there are also limitations concerning incremental upgradability of the array. (e.g. what happens if I have N disks and I just want to add 1 or 2 more) - Rich -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/hardware-tp14682251p14695423.html Sent from the Mapserver - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
