Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    483

    What would be faster ?

    Current config: 2 x 10K SCSI (non RAID), One disk is used for system (centOS ) + apache , second one for MySQL only.
    The question is : will system based on RAID10 with SATA drives be faster than my current one based on 2 x 10K SCSI (non RAID) ?

  2. #2
    I will say no your question
    Hans Comequick
    http://now1host.com
    Now One Host // Instant Activation //Free Setup //One Big Usefull Packet
    //You get Fast Servers //You get Helpfull Stuff

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,673
    SCSI is faster than SATA.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    Quote Originally Posted by The Engine
    SCSI is faster than SATA.
    Obviously, but when you increase the number of drives and use a high performance RAID level (such as 10), as well as the newer SATAII disks (though, doesn't have to be...), SATA can be quite comparable.

    To answer the OP's question, the RAID 10 array (with minimum 4x drives, FYI.) will give you the better I/O.

  5. #5
    It wont be faster, but definitely more redundant!

    I dont know how you make your backup's but with a raid-10 setup, if 1 hdd dies no data is lost and the box keeps running (maybe if you have hot-swappable disks you can even change disks without having to reboot).

    With your current setup, the data is lost and the box down if one disk dies.

    For more information about RAID levels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Ogden, UT
    Posts
    476
    Yes, the Raid 10 serial ata would be faster than this setup. Remember Raid 10 requires 4 drives. right now your db is limited to the speed of one drive, if you go raid 10 each serial ata drive is slower, but your gaining 4 drives worth of i/o.

    Another note, I am talking about a real serial ata raid setup / 3ware and the likes. the onboard motherboard raid 10 setup will not work in many linux distros and is a poor option for raid 10. Good luck!

    Dan
    Daniel Pautz - WebNX, Inc. dan >< WebNX.com
    WebNX.com Enterprise Hosting Solutions – Southern California (Premium Equinix Based DC), Northern Utah (Large 120k Sq' WebNX ran) and NYC Based Servers
    High end Dedicated Servers at reasonable prices on a Premium network with 9x providers route optimized with the Noction IRP

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    64
    I'd go with the SATA RAID just because drive failures are a pain, and it's going to happen if you like it or not.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    421
    If you have the money for the 4 sata's, then i'd go with the raid 10 option as well + it's more failsafe
    || Semi-professional PHP developer || Exams right now, don't I just feel lucky? ||

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    483
    And what about speed comparison of both ?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1
    I believe, and the consensus seems to be, that the speed will be comparable, and any slight loss of performance, if noticable at all, would be far outweighed by the redundancy provided with the RAID 10 config. The issue seems to be whether you want to incure the additional costs. If that is not an issue for you, I would suggest moving to the RAID 10 / SATA config. To quote the previous poster, "Drive failures are a pain".

Posting Permissions

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