Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 03:07:40 -0400 (VET) From: "Luis E. Munoz" <lem@cantv.net> To: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> DUB@payserv.telekurs.com Cc: radams@siscom.net, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Re: Building new mail system Message-ID: <199901230707.DAA15171@rs4s1.datacenter.cha.cantv.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote on 22/1/99 23:54: >Bernhard Duebi wrote in >message ID ><36A8638B.5D09A4A5@Tele >kurs.com>: >> Hi, >> >> I don't know the >controllers, but if ever >possible avoid Raid 5. It's >slow. I >> think Raid 0+1 is the way >to go. > >Thats a very biased >statement. RAID5 is fine >(should in theory be >identical) >as RAID0 for reads. Yes, >writes have a penalty, but I >think that very much >depends on the application. >Yes, performance degrades >if you lose a drive and >you go into rebuild mode >onto a spare, but hey, guess >what, mirrors do too :) In addition to this, many contemporary controllers have pretty decent caching in battery-backed memory. This helps a lot while a member is lost. Another plus on the 0+1, also called 10, is that it can tolerate *some* failure scenarios where more than a single member dies. My advice is to go witu 0+1 if you have the budget. -- -lem To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901230707.DAA15171>