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 file
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 te
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 Ballinge
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
om
Blog: http://blog.all-spec.com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:02 PM
> To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org'
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 dis
I prefer mirroring. I had a RAID customer in NYC lost a single drive in a
five-drive set.
When this happens, none of the data on any of the remaining disks is
visible.
We stayed there all night long restoring data from tape.
Unless extreme throughput is needed (how many end-users are there?) I w
There is some confusion in the market place as to what raid 0+1 and raid 1+0
are - in fact most times they are the same.
I think the confusion stems from you looking at it either from the os point of
view or from the hardware side of things.
Many h/w vendors (like dell) approach it from the har
phil walker wrote:
Hi All,
I have just read a slide from the U2 University sessions whereby it
states...
RAID 0+1 is absolutely the fastest implementation possible for disk
drives
t>Internal and External Disk Drives -Raid 0+1, striping and
mirroring tWhen a mirrored disk drive is not commit
