Re: RAID Question - Again
- From: "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 11:04:05 -0400
Peter Kaufman <expat_th-usenet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would consider the opposite - RAID 5 for the system and 1 or 10 for
the data.
RAID1 for the O/S. You really don't want to be using RAID5 for the
pagefile, log files, etc. And there's usually no need to use three
spindles of disk (RAID5) where RAID1 would need just two to offer the
same protection.
The reason is 5 is very slow on writes, and is therefore not a good
choice for any database (including Exchange), log files, temp files,
etc.
So why recommend its use for the system (which I assume you mean to be
the O/S)?
OTOH, RAID 5 is the most reliable
Until you lose two disks, or you lose the 2nd disk while the RAID is
rebuilding. Don't discount TIF (Technician Induced Failure) as a
source of trouble.
--
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAID Question - Again
- From: Andy David - MVP
- Re: RAID Question - Again
- References:
- Re: RAID Question - Again
- From: Peter Kaufman
- Re: RAID Question - Again
- Prev by Date: Re: Routing beteween companies
- Next by Date: Re: Add Exchange 5.5 server to domain with Exchange 2003
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID Question - Again
- Next by thread: Re: RAID Question - Again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|