[Gllug] Production system - Linux 2.4.24, LVM and cciss

[Dale Gallagher]

> Almost by definition RAID5 is faster for both reading and writing than
> RAID0+1.  In cases where RAID5 is actually slower, it often means that
> the system was poorly thought out.  For example, small numbers of
> larger disks where larger numbers of smaller disks would been
> appropriate.

I disagree - in fact, I haven't found a single comparison where RAID5's
overall performance is claimed to be better than RAID1+0 (I've been
talking about a stripe of mirrors [1+0], though a mirror of stripes
[0+1] shares the same level of disk performance). I've included a few
references:

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/comp.html
http://tech-report.com/reviews/2002q4/ideraid/index.x?pg=1

I chose RAID1+0 for its overall superior read/write performance and
fault tolerance - sacrificing capacity for these traits is worth it on
a system this size with my particular requirements. 
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug