Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: What would be faster ?
-
12-08-2006, 04:52 PM #1Web Hosting Evangelist
- 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) ?
-
12-08-2006, 06:42 PM #2Newbie
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 15
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
-
12-08-2006, 06:49 PM #3ex. *** *****
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Location
- Italy
- Posts
- 1,673
SCSI is faster than SATA.
-
12-08-2006, 06:51 PM #4Eternal Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 10,710
Originally Posted by The Engine
To answer the OP's question, the RAID 10 array (with minimum 4x drives, FYI.) will give you the better I/O.
-
12-08-2006, 06:52 PM #5Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Posts
- 226
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
-
12-08-2006, 06:52 PM #6
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!
DanDaniel 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
-
12-08-2006, 09:47 PM #7Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
12-09-2006, 07:09 AM #8Aspiring Evangelist
- 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? ||
-
12-09-2006, 11:06 AM #9Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 483
And what about speed comparison of both ?
-
12-09-2006, 11:22 AM #10Disabled
- 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".