Re: RAID 0/RAID 5???
- From: Steven Bellamy <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:59:00 +0100
My 2c worth.
Are you sure that he didn't mean RAID1?
RAID0 has zero redundancy, so if one disc fails, you lose EVERYTHING!
RAID1 is a set or identically mirrorer disks, so if one fails, the other can carry on working as usual. The read and write speeds usually equal the speed of a single disk.
I'd go for RAID5 as it offers great redundancy (although you can only lose 1 disk), but you have the added advantage of multiple disk heads reading and writing data to and from the array, therefore throughput is usually greater.
A useful website that explains RAID configurations can be found here: http://www.raid.com/04_01_00.html
Hope this helps.
Kirsten wrote:
Hi. I bought two brand new HP/Compaq ML370 servers with 4 SCSI disks each and a Smart Array Controller (hardware for raid capabilities).
With my old servers I had RAID 5 with a similar configuration so I was going to configure the new servers with the same mechanism, but the Compaq agent that installed the new computers told me to use RAID 0 because it is safe enough and save lots of CPU+hardware resources.
The obvious fact is that RAID 5 is SAFER than RAID 0, but now I'm a little bit confused by this guy's suggestion. So, what do you suggest? Each server will hold an instance of SQL Server and IIS Server.
Thanks in advance, Kirsten
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAID 0/RAID 5???
- From: Brian L.
- Re: RAID 0/RAID 5???
- References:
- RAID 0/RAID 5???
- From: Kirsten
- RAID 0/RAID 5???
- Prev by Date: Rollup1 for Sp4 Version2
- Next by Date: Re: What the Best practice?
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID 0/RAID 5???
- Next by thread: Re: RAID 0/RAID 5???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading