[CentOS] RAID5 or RAID50 for database?

Thu May 22 16:12:46 UTC 2008
Rudi Ahlers <Rudi at SoftDux.com>

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