Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    206

    which raid is the best?

    Which RAID is the best for a perfect combination of performance and redundancy. I will be running 74gb SCSI drives.

  2. #2
    As a rule, RAID 0 (i.e., plain disk striping) provides the fastest I/O and thus the best performance.

    But ensure you have a off-server backup plan in place.
    Reseller-Network.Com
    Hsphere, DirectAdmin, or Helm. Windows 2003 & Unix Reseller,Shared,and Dedicated Hosting.
    *Multi-Homed* *Usage-Based* *Adult Content Allowed*

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,396
    I only like raid 1. But we do have a few raid 0+1 and I really like that as well. Raid 0+1 does seem a bit slow, and I dont need the striping, but mirroring is really nice, just takes a while to rebuild the raid array when a drive fails.
    Eleven2 Web Hosting - World-Wide Hosting, Done Right!
    Shared Hosting | Reseller Hosting | Dedicated | Virtual Premium Servers
    Server Locations in: Dallas | Los Angeles | Singapore | Amsterdam

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    I assume you'll be using a raid controller and not doing software RAID. Which type (of RAID) is best varies on your application. For most standard server roles RAID5 gives good performance. RAID1 while high performance means "wasting" half of your disks. For certain disk intensive applications RAID10 (1+0) and RAID50 (5+0) give a noticable improvement but not all controllers support them.
    RAID0 is very high performance but offers no redundancy.
    Last edited by trau; 04-25-2005 at 08:27 PM.
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  5. #5
    raid 0 for servers is not a good idea ...
    P4HOST.COM -- Specialize in quality Web Hosting solutions.
    Affordable -- Prices are very comparative
    Reliable -- Very low load average guaranteed. 60 day money back. Fast Support --Support Forum -- Providing hosting since 2003

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    RAID 5 is superior to RAID 0. It gives the benefit of striping but no data is lost if one of the drives in the stripe set is lost. When a drive fails, the RAID controller will rebuild the info contained on the failed drive onto the new drive inserted into the stripe set.

    I know some can say it better than I just did.
    Rich
    WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to Build and Promote your Web Site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    Originally posted by DevilDog
    RAID 5 is superior to RAID 0. It gives the benefit of striping but no data is lost if one of the drives in the stripe set is lost. When a drive fails, the RAID controller will rebuild the info contained on the failed drive onto the new drive inserted into the stripe set.

    I know some can say it better than I just did.
    In terms of pure performance (disk i/o RAID0 is superior. But as you stated RAID0's biggest short coming is due to the lack of parity (which is what gives it the performance boost). Lose any one drive in the array and you lose everything.

    Another thing very few people seem to consider is that using more drives (adding more spindles) improves the performance. A RAID5 array with 10 drives will be able to achieve higher throughput than an array with 5 drives. A couple of years back I was with an IBM engineer when he proved this. At 90 drives performance was still increasing. So if you're doing disk intensive stuff (like SQL) throwing more spindles at it will almost always help.
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    334
    raid 0 is not "r"aid. If your intent is for redundancy or fault tolerance, 0 is not an option. 1/5/1+0 etc will depend on your exact needs. Ideally if you want performance and redundancy you would be looking at 1+0 (or raid 10), but its expensive compared to other raid types. What exactly are you going to be doing and how much were you looking to spend on a controller?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    505
    I guess RAID 1 should be very useful in case you are looking for any. This will provide you with the ability of mirroring and Duplexion. Or you can also go for RAID 10 (a stripe of mirrors) or RAID 0+1 (a mirror of stripe).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    505
    You can refer to the following URL and judge for yourself:-

    http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •