Quote:
|
Originally Posted by V_RocKs
Hmm... Looked into it...
Raid 0 - Fastest. Takes 3 disks and uses them in unison.
Raid 1 - Slowest. Takes 3 disks and mirrors them. No performance enhancement.
Raid 3 - Costs to much and no enhancement.
Raid 5 - Reads fast (but not faster) but requires memory and should use more than one controller to keep up with non raid speeds.
Raid 1+0 (0+1)(10) - Best of both worlds... But obviously more expensive.
|
Raid 0 - Can work with minimum of two disks, is fastest, no redundancy. You lose 1 drive you are out.
Raid 1 - Cannot work with 3 disks, must be equal numbers. 2/4/6/8/etc. Great redundancy but expensive (one hd per hd). Slow, but not as slow as Raid 10.
Raid 3 - Dunno, havn't had any experience with it.
Raid 5 - 3 absolute minimum, 5 recommended minimum (for performance + less loss of storage). Hardware Raid-5 is great, Software Raid-5 is pretty sluggish but still workable. Very redundant, can lose one HD and array be fine. A 5 HD array will lose about 22% of storage to go for redundancy.
Raid 1+0 - Same as Raid 3 (that is I don't have enough experience with it to talk about it).