On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:01 -0400, justin wrote:
> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
> >
> > > If you're looking at read only / read
> > > mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But
> > > RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives.
> > Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation?
> >
> >
> >
> I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where
> there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance.
> If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data
> will happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail
> the system can keep going. Giving you time to shut down and replace
> the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace.
I'm looking for purely read-only performance and since I didn't have the
bandwidth to do extensive testing, I didn't know whether a RAID1 or a
Raid 0 will do the better job. In the end, I decided to go with RAID 0
and now, I'm thinking if RAID1 will do a better job.
>
