<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Personally, I never touch raid5, but then, I'm on sata. I do agree<br>
that there are benifits to hardware raid with battery backed cache if<br>
you do use raid5 (but I think raid5 is usually a mistake, unless it's<br>
all read only, in which case you are better off using main memory for<br>
cache. you are trading away small write performance to get space; with<br>
disk, space is cheap and performance is expensive, so personally, if<br>
I'm going to trade I will trade in the other direction.)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Interesting thoughts on raid5 although I doubt many would agree. I don't see how the drive <br>type has ANYTHING to do with the RAID level. There are different RAID levels for different situations<br>
I guess but a RAID 10 (or 0+1) will <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/external-raid-storage,1922-9.html">never reach the write or read performance</a> of a RAID-5. The disk space waste<br>isn't too much of a problem anymore because as you say drives are getting much cheaper. Although on that subject<br>
I'll mention that enterprise drives and desktop drives are NOT the same thing. We deal in hundreds of drives and see<br>about a 3% failure on desktop drives and only a fraction of that on enterprise drives.<br><br>I will say though that in my opinion the one really important thing to consider is the price. These controllers<br>
aren't cheap and if you skimp you will pay. For sequential single reads (streaming one stream) I'd consider<br>using a software "RAID" 0. For a mirror I'd consider Software RAID but once I get serious and go for RAID5 or RAID6 I'd <br>
only use Hardware RAID.<br><br>That's my 2 cents. :-)<br><br>Grant McWilliams<br></div></div>