If you do, which did you go with and did you notice any speed enhancement?
-
-
RAID 5, huge difference.
Naughty America - Director of Technology
It's a CELEBRATION bitches!! For the hottest content promote Naughty America!
swish at naughtyamerica dot com | ICQ: 226 737 620 | See Who I Am At AdultWhosWho.com! -
Raid 1+0self made mothafucka.
buying premium domains & developed sites with revenue/traffic -> adaptweb at gmail.comComment
-
really not sure why you recommend raid 5 for speed.Originally posted by SwishRAID 5, huge difference.self made mothafucka.
buying premium domains & developed sites with revenue/traffic -> adaptweb at gmail.comComment
-
raid 5 is not the best array for speed.
look on the internet for breakdowns of raid arrays regarding speed vs. data security.
if ur interested in speed use raid 0 which offers no failure security but does offer the highest speed of any raid array.Comment
-
i agree.. just becareful with just RAID 0.. if one drive fails, youre toast..Originally posted by fuzzylogic
i really like RAID 1+0.. has some failure security and speed at the expense of usable diskspace.. many people use RAID5 so they only lose one disk of available space (parity).self made mothafucka.
buying premium domains & developed sites with revenue/traffic -> adaptweb at gmail.comComment
-
raid +1
raid 5 on linux -1 *power 8
on intel raid 0,1 or 5 does not much mater355 north
Adultdatelink.comComment
-
we've actually noticed slower performance going with raid 5 over single disk operations.Comment
-
well i think you are wrongOriginally posted by L0stMind
thats impossible355 north
Adultdatelink.comComment
-
-
and why is that impossibleOriginally posted by PointlessComment
-
raid 1+0Comment
-
When you say "speed" are you referring to transfer or seek speed? There's a big difference between a system that deals with large files read mostly sequentially (ie movies) and a system with lots of small or highly fragmented files (ie a database) where the disk head has to move around a lot."Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. MenckenComment
-
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.Comment
-
Raid 0 - Can work with minimum of two disks, is fastest, no redundancy. You lose 1 drive you are out.Originally posted by V_RocKs
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).
Comment
Comment