Well, I understand your opinion and your point.
However, raid 5 can usually be had in a hot swap environment, and it can
consume as little of 20% of the disk resources to implement.
If my memory serves, raid 0 is striping and raid 1 is mirroring.
Mirroring uses 50% of the disk resources to implement. The mirroring
solutions I have seen requires you to take the system down to recover. I
have not seen a hot swap mirror environment, though one may exist. I have
seen several raid 5 hot swap environments.
It really is up to the final customer. I prefer raid 5 over mirroring
for maximum up time in the commercial products I've seen.
wade
On 19 Mar 1999, Derick H Siddoway wrote:
> 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.
>
