Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 at 11:20am, Florin Andrei wrote > >> I think I can go with the "throw more hardware (bigger disks) at the >> problem" approach and use RAID1 instead of RAID5. That should give a >> boost to the read performance, in theory. >> I need to do some tests and figure out what works best in this >> particular case. > > IMO, you do *not* want RAID5 there. RAID10 is likely to work best. > With todays larger drives, and the amount of time raid5 rebuilds can take leaving you exposed to double failure, and the price of drives, I'm not sure there's _ANY_ application anymore for which raid5 is appropriate. And absolutely for sure, anything involving SQL databases should be raid1/10... >> There's not much room in the system, it's a 1U. I think I can fit a >> full-height card in it, but it must not be too bulky. the cache battery backup option might be tough to squeeze into a 1U.