If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More drives = faster RAID 5 ?
I've question regarding RAID 5, is there any benefit in going beyond 3 hard
disks when you're using RAID 5 ?. Obviously if you need huge amounts of storage then 'yes' but if you have modest storage requirements (say 8 GB) and need faster read/writes is there any benefit from having more disks ? (or should I just ignore RAID 5 and use RAID 10 instead ?). Thanks. Clive. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I've question regarding RAID 5, is there any benefit in going beyond 3 hard disks when you're using RAID 5 ?. Yes: more capacity, better performance. Obviously if you need huge amounts of storage then 'yes' but if you have modest storage requirements (say 8 GB) and need faster read/writes is there any benefit from having more disks ? (or should I just ignore RAID 5 and use RAID 10 instead ?). Can you actually find disks smaller than 8 GB any more? If not, and a mirror pair will give you the performance you need, why consider RAID-5 at all? Read performance is pretty much linear in the number of disks you use, whether they're organized as RAID-5 or RAID-1/10. Write performance will usually be better with RAID-1/10 than with RAID-5 (though very large writes won't see much difference either way, if your RAID controller is smart). A RAID controller with stable write-back cache will often improve small-write performance more than adding disks will (this will definitely be true if your write workload is serial rather than parallel in nature), but if the controller's write-back cache isn't itself mirrored it constitutes a single point of failure that is otherwise avoidable. - bill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the v. helpfull reply Bill.
Clive. "Bill Todd" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I've question regarding RAID 5, is there any benefit in going beyond 3 hard disks when you're using RAID 5 ?. Yes: more capacity, better performance. Obviously if you need huge amounts of storage then 'yes' but if you have modest storage requirements (say 8 GB) and need faster read/writes is there any benefit from having more disks ? (or should I just ignore RAID 5 and use RAID 10 instead ?). Can you actually find disks smaller than 8 GB any more? If not, and a mirror pair will give you the performance you need, why consider RAID-5 at all? Read performance is pretty much linear in the number of disks you use, whether they're organized as RAID-5 or RAID-1/10. Write performance will usually be better with RAID-1/10 than with RAID-5 (though very large writes won't see much difference either way, if your RAID controller is smart). A RAID controller with stable write-back cache will often improve small-write performance more than adding disks will (this will definitely be true if your write workload is serial rather than parallel in nature), but if the controller's write-back cache isn't itself mirrored it constitutes a single point of failure that is otherwise avoidable. - bill |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
writes:
I've question regarding RAID 5, is there any benefit in going beyond 3 hard disks when you're using RAID 5 ?. [...] Well, you can setup a fourth as a hot spare in case one of the first three dies. -- David Magda dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I think more disks will result in higher performance because read/write
access is parallel based on strap. raid5 sacrifices one disk to guarantee the data security. Alternatively, raid10 will be expensive but more save. дÈëÓʼþ ... I've question regarding RAID 5, is there any benefit in going beyond 3 hard disks when you're using RAID 5 ?. Obviously if you need huge amounts of storage then 'yes' but if you have modest storage requirements (say 8 GB) and need faster read/writes is there any benefit from having more disks ? (or should I just ignore RAID 5 and use RAID 10 instead ?). Thanks. Clive. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
15K rpm SCSI-disk | Ronny Mandal | General | 26 | December 8th 04 09:04 PM |
P4P800DLX from non-raid to raid | Splitskull | Asus Motherboards | 2 | June 2nd 04 10:51 AM |
Another RAID for Beginners Question | Philadelphia Frank | Asus Motherboards | 4 | May 31st 04 01:59 PM |
P4C800-E Deluxe/SATA RAID 0/Major System Crash/Recovering Drives | Paul | Asus Motherboards | 12 | November 4th 03 05:20 PM |
DAW & Windows XP RAID Tips, ProTools error -9086 | Giganews | Asus Motherboards | 0 | October 24th 03 06:45 AM |