Hi Waynn,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Waynn Lue waynn...@gmail.com wrote:
I currently have a RAID 5 setup for our database server. Our space is
running out, so I'm looking to increase the disk space. Since I'm doing
that anyway, I decided to re-evaluate our current disk array. I was
SCSI/FC/SAS drives are absolutely faster, especially at 15kRPM. Your
requirement of IOPS vs Usable space may actually make it less expensive to
use FC drives (ex. if you don't have to retain much data but need it to be
really fast _all_ the time). This can be especially true if you take
What RAID level to use, whether to use SCSI or SATA etc are all pretty
much how long is a piece of string? questions. If you have a really
high end hardware array RAID 5 may be faster than RAID1+0 is on a
cheaper system.
Basically
RAID 5 = slower
SATA = slower
RAID 1+0 = faster
SCSI =
SCSI isn't necessarily faster now. The big difference used to be
SCSI's support for command queueing, which is why it was faster in
multi-user environments. Command queueing is now fairly common in SATA
drives.
The highest end SCSI is probably still faster than the highest end
SATA, but you will
I currently have a RAID 5 setup for our database server. Our space is
running out, so I'm looking to increase the disk space. Since I'm doing
that anyway, I decided to re-evaluate our current disk array. I was told
that RAID 5 isn't a good choice for databases since it's slower to write.
In
I work for a high-volume web site and we use nothing but RAID 10 on
all databases which requires a minimum of 4 disks. The write penalty
for raid 5 is just too high for our application. Much of that space
goes unused, but we need the stripe to keep up with the I/O.
- michael dykman
On Sun,
