List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Derick H Siddoway Date:March 19 1999 4:11pm
Subject:Re: fastCPU vs moreRAM
View as plain text  
Again, I have issue with RAID 5 being used willy-nilly for databases.
You can get complete reliability using RAID 0+1 configurations (which
also only require 2 drives instead of three), plus you will outperform
a RAID 5 solution on writes by a couple of orders of magnitude.

There is a weird perception, perhaps because "5" > "0+1" that
this makes RAID 5 somehow better.  It is more *complex*, but it's
certainly not the ultimate solution that many people somehow
believe.

-- 
derick



From:	maxfield%one.ctelcom.net@Internet on 03/18/99 03:58 PM
To:	scottm%phoenix.net@Internet
cc:	mysql%lists.mysql.com@Internet, scottm%pobox.com@Internet (bcc: 
Derick H Siddoway/TC/TRS/American Express)
Subject:	Re: fastCPU vs moreRAM


{snip}

  For reliability, try to get a controller that will allow you to Raid 5
the drives.  This will require 3 drives minimum, but it gives you the
ability to loose one drive of the three to a hard failure and still keep
your data intact.

{snip}



Thread
fastCPU vs moreRAMScott Moseman18 Mar
  • Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMWade Maxfield18 Mar
  • Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMSasha Pachev19 Mar
  • Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMHironori Sato19 Mar
Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMDerick H Siddoway19 Mar
Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMDerick H Siddoway19 Mar
Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMKarl Pielorz19 Mar
Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMWade Maxfield19 Mar
  • Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMAdrian Phillips19 Mar
Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMDerick H Siddoway19 Mar
Re: fastCPU vs moreRAMDerick H Siddoway19 Mar