Warren Young wrote: > 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*. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > It seems like you know / like RAID-10 a lot :) So, how does it perform with 6 discs for example? Say I have 3 HDD's in RAID-0, and another 3 in RAID-0, then RAID-1 the 2 RAID-0 stripes. How well would that work? And what would you recommend on 8 / 10 HDD's? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers CEO, SoftDux Web: http://www.SoftDux.com Check out my technical blog, http://blog.softdux.com for Linux or other technical stuff, or visit http://www.WebHostingTalk.co.za for Web Hosting stuff