|
|
Posted by Hank Arnold on 10/02/18 11:47
My opinion is that this only highlights the fact that *general*
guidelines will not always apply.
What we have here is a couple of reports that RAID 10 is slower that
RAID 5 for the database in question. The vast majority of expert reports
that I have read (including the vendor of our medical database) is that
*IN GENERAL* RAID 10 is faster than RAID 5 for databases. Nowhere have I
ever seen the statement that it is *ALWAYS* faster.
I don't doubt that the posters are reporting accurate information, I
just don't see where it means that RAID 5 is *ALWAYS* faster than RAID
10 any more that the opposite is true....
Regards,
Hank Arnold
Dave wrote:
> I understood her post, I just don' think that the "current way" is
> a logical or scientific way to analyze Raid. I understand the fault
> tolerance and Degradation/Rebuilding benefits of Raid 10. However, for
> performance reasons alone, I it doesn't appear to be justified.
>
> I admit my testing is inconclusive. I wish I had to opportunity to
> conduct more tests and see how performance varies with the number of
> disks in the array.
>
> It would also be interesting to repeat the tests on different hardware.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|