RAID-5 and database servers
Support @ Technologist
support at technologist.si
Thu Mar 11 12:23:02 CST 2010
I think if you use raid1 with at least 1 hotspare, you're pretty secure
with a high datatransfer..
If one disk fails then the hotspare takes it place and gives the time to
replace the broken disk..
Recently I put an old server from raid5 to raid1, because of the
progresql. they recommended the raid 1 or raid 10 for performance.
Although I never had serious problems with raid 5 ( always used
combination of at least 3 disks and minimal of 1 hotspare.). No hardware
problems, nor performance issues.
But I mostly work with quite small workgroups (max 50 workstations).
Op donderdag 11-03-2010 om 12:09 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Preston
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM, J. Epperson
> <Dell at epperson.homelinux.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17, Dan Pritts wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad
> >>> idea
> >> http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/RAID
> > Which says that unless money is no object, go with RAID 5.
> Actually it says if money is no object, go with RAID 10:
> RAID 10 is the ideal RAID level in terms of performance and
> availability, but it can be expensive as it requires at least twice
> the amount of disk space. If money is no objective, always choose RAID
> I would agree with the RAID 10 recommendation. I at one time did a
> lot of RAID 5 to try to comprimise price vs performance, but had
> several array failures resulting in having to restore from backup.
> Now, I put anything important on either RAID 1, or RAID 10. Basically
> I use RAID 1 if it needs to be reliable and RAID 10 if it needs to be
> reliable and fast.
> Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
> Linux-PowerEdge at dell.com
> Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge