[SATLUG] new box built but not qutie happy

Tom Weeks tweeksjunk2 at theweeks.org
Sun Feb 10 22:23:18 CST 2008

On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:17:34 Brad Knowles wrote:
> On 2/9/08, toddwbucy wrote:
> >       I wanted to use the 4 320 gigs as raid 5 but I am real
> >  disappointed in the write performance so I have been thinking of either
> >  useing a hardware raid 5 or trying to get the ubuntu gutsy alternate
> >  install to do a raid 1+0.  by the way my raid 5 array will be use to
> >  archive the raid 0 will only be used for production.
> As I said before, unless you're willing to spend some pretty major
> bucks, you're just not going to see that great RAID-5 performance as
> compared to RAID-1+0.  If this is just for archive and not
> production, then the write performance shouldn't matter much.  But
> you've got to make your own decision.

RAID 0+1 sucks (a mirror of two RAID-0s)...  Yeah it's fast, but has a much 
higher failure rate than RAID-10 (striped RAID-1 mirrors). If you're running 
a nice battery backed cache RAID card, and write back cache is enabled.. then 
RAID-10 will be nice and fast too.  Of course a "nice" RAID card with batt 
backed cache and write-back cache will start at not much less than $2-300 


More information about the SATLUG mailing list