From: Wade Maxfield Date: March 19 1999 4:31pm Subject: Re: fastCPU vs moreRAM List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/620 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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. >