[CentOS] RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
Warren Young
warren at etr-usa.com
Thu May 22 16:01:36 UTC 2008
John R Pierce wrote:
> raid50 requires 2 or more raid 5 volumes.
>
> with 4 disks, thats just not an option.
>
> for file storage (including backup files from a database), raid5 is
> probably fine... for primary database tablespace storage, I'd only use
> raid1 or raid10.
RAID-10 has only one perfect application, and that's with exactly four
disks. It can't use fewer, and the next larger step is 8, where other
flavors of RAID usually make more sense. But, for the 4-disk
configuration, it's unbeatable unless you need capacity more than speed
and redundancy. (In that case, you go with RAID-5.)
RAID-10 gives the same redundancy as RAID-50: guaranteed tolerance of a
single disk lost, and will tolerate a second disk lost at the same time
if it's in the other half of the RAID. RAID-10 may also give better
performance than RAID-50. I'm not sure because you're trading off more
spindles against more parity calculation with the RAID-50. At any rate,
RAID-10 shouldn't be *slower*.
More information about the CentOS
mailing list