Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:34:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>, Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>, Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PERC2 RAID support in 4.1-STABLE Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10010181731440.526-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <200010190023.e9J0N6e90640@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Matt Dillon wrote: > :If memory serves, this is what I ordered on a couple of my new > :2450's... The 100MHz i960RX with 128MB cache. I'm planning to run some > :tests in RAID 1 and 10 modes. > : > :I'm not sure I fully understand why a lot of people are so caught up on > :RAID 5. RAID 1 seems fast and reliable given a decent controller with > :good recovery options, and RAID 10 sounds like a better solution with a > :larger quantity of drives. > > A mirrored setup (RAID-1) will be a whole lot faster then a parity > setup (RAID-5), since different read requests can be dispatched to > both sides of the mirror simultaniously and writing does not require > parity calculation. A RAID5 system can also send different read requests to different disks. Writing is another issue. Writing to a RAID5 volume can be costly. Writing is ususally one third the speed of reading, especially small random writes. Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10010181731440.526-100000>