Re: RAID 10 vs. RAID 5 question
From: Gert E.R. Drapers (GertD_at_SQLDevNet)
Date: 02/16/05
- Next message: Ayman AM via SQLMonster.com: "a strange issue after installing SP3a (SP3a Issue)"
- Previous message: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: File Open"
- In reply to: news.microsoft.com: "RAID 10 vs. RAID 5 question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:53:03 +0100
This website has great details and arguments why you should not use RAID 5
for a RDBMS implementation
GertD@SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright © SQLDev.Net 1991-2005 All rights reserved.
"news.microsoft.com" <richk@bluestreammedia.com> wrote in message
news:OUGbB56EFHA.2176@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have an external RAID with 10 36GB 15K drives. These drives are only for
> the data of the SQL server, not tran logs, tempdb's etc.
>
> Database Type is OLTP with more then 30% writes then reads
>
> This is my question:
>
> I understand more spindles are better, and I understand RAID 10 is faster
> for writes then a RAID5 configuration. Plus both configurations will give
> me
> enough HD space. So on with the question.
>
> Should i use RAID 10 or RAID5?
>
> RAID 10 would give be theoretically faster writes and great protection,
> but
> gives me only 5 disks to write to simultaneously.
>
> RAID 5 gives me around 9 disks but is known to be slower due to the
> overhead.
>
> Is the RAID5 really that much slower that it would hinder performance
> compared to a RAID 10 with only 5 disks?
>
> So what do you guys think?
>
>
> -King
>
>
- Next message: Ayman AM via SQLMonster.com: "a strange issue after installing SP3a (SP3a Issue)"
- Previous message: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: File Open"
- In reply to: news.microsoft.com: "RAID 10 vs. RAID 5 question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
