Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:09:00 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Cc: jmc <jcagle@gmail.com>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server Message-ID: <430B663C.2040705@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <20050823145159.GB65857@elvis.mu.org> References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> <430AD329.4090601@bmby.com> <20050823144129.GE43820@decibel.org> <20050823145159.GB65857@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Drum wrote: >Quoth Jim C. Nasby: > > > >>I'd suggest whichever one is a stripe of mirrors (you don't want a >>mirror of 2 stripe sets). >> >> > >RAID 1+0 (also incorrectly referred to as "10") is a stripe of mirrors. >RAID 0+1 is a mirror of stripes. >Jim is right; the difference is subtle yet important when one or more disks fail. > > This site has a good explanation: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/ Presumably something like RAID 50 would be an improvement too. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?430B663C.2040705>