Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> In my testing I found that once you hit 10 spindles in a RAID5 the
> differences between it and a RAID10 started to become negligible
> (around 6% slower on writes average with 10 runs of bonnie++ on
> 10 spindles) while the read speed (if you're doing similar amounts
> of reads & writes it's a fair criterion) were in about the 10% region
> faster. With 24 spindles I couldn't see any difference at all. Those
> were 73GB 15K SCAs, btw, and the SAN connected via 2GB fibre.
Isn't a 10 or 24 spindle RAID 5 array awfully likely to encounter a
double disk failure (such as during the load imposed by rebuild onto a
spare) ?
I guess if you have good backups - as you must - it's not that big a
deal, but I'd be pretty nervous with anything less than RAID 6 or RAID 10 .
--
Craig Ringer
