List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Derick H Siddoway Date:March 19 1999 8:45pm
Subject:Re: fastCPU vs moreRAM
View as plain text  
This is what I'm semi-ranting about.  RAID 5 doesn't give you
enough bang for the cost (processing, time, or money) to justify
it in most cases.  But a lot of people out there have this idea
that RAID 5 is going to provide you with maximum uptime, nevermind
the rest of the issues.  It's not so.  RAID 0+1 and RAID 5 are
nearly equivalent in terms of data availability.  And the >very<
small gain you get from RAID 5 is offset by increased costs.

To bring this back to database-land, I'll reiterate this:  if
more than about 10% of your db queries are writes, you'll suffer
significant performance degradation if you use RAID 5.

But RAID 5 does have maximum *cool* factor... :)

And, yes, you can certainly hot-swap in a RAID 0+1 environment.
I've done it, using SEVM with disks in multipacks.



From:	maxfield%one.ctelcom.net@Internet on 03/19/99 09:29 AM
To:	Derick H Siddoway/TC/TRS/American Express@AMEX
cc:	mysql%lists.mysql.com@Internet 
Subject:	Re: fastCPU vs moreRAM

{snip}

  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.



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