|
Posted by Hank Arnold on 05/18/06 11:45
1492a2001@terra.es wrote:
> Hank Arnold wrote:
>> 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.
>
> that's a nonsense. RAID10 is ALWAYS as fast or faster than RAID5. It's
> a physics questions (the number movements of the disk heads necessary
> to read or write an amount of data).
>
> defective implementations are another history.
>
What a nice, polite response..... :-(
Regards,
Hank Arnold
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|