General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2189036

    raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

    Locked

    by mikepell ·

    We are rebuilding a database server and need to increase performance. we were told to go to raid 10 take off the os/transaction logs to a mirrored drives and to keep the raid to 4 drives. Current setup is raid 5/4 disks, non mirrored for os. Question is,
    Raid 10 with 4 drives is going to have a major increase in performance over a raid 5? or should we get more drives for the raid 10.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3122756

      Reply To: raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      by bobsta ·

      In reply to raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      RAID 10 can be extremely troublesome when a drive fails, to rebuild that is! RAID 5 with four disks is going to be alot better than RAID 10 with four disks, performance wise! I recommend you buy more disks, lets say two more, which will give you six drives. Place three drives in RAID 5 and the other three drives in RAID 5 and then mirror the two RAID 5’s, giving you RAID 10, increased performance and redundant.

    • #3122000

      Reply To: raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      by jdgretz ·

      In reply to raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      Take a look at this link…

      http://www.bytepile.com/raid_class.php#10

      I think you will find some good information and pointers there.

      jdg

    • #3123440

      Reply To: raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      by zaferus ·

      In reply to raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      We are running an Oracle database, here is our configuration:

      OS drives: 2 (disks) x R1
      Database drives: 12 x R1+0

      We did consider these configurations:
      OS drives: 2 x R1
      Logs: 4 x R1+0
      Database drives: 8 x R1+0

      and:
      OS drives: 2 x R1
      Logs: 3 x R5
      Database drives: 10 x R1+0

      However in conversations with our vendor they hadn’t seen significant performance improvement with separating logs and database drives.

      It’s more expensive for disk, but if you want a database to perform – put it on R1+0. As long as you understand the tradeoff (cost vs. performance), only you can make that decision. For us it was an easy choice as we need our databases to be fast.

      -Z

    • #2504392

      raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      by kcroker1 ·

      In reply to raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      Whitney Houston said “Crack is Whack”. Basically with any increase in performance you’re going to add additional hardware to the configuration whether it’s a 5/4 or 10/4 configuration. It’s the “not what you have, but what you do with it” approach.

    • #2450203

      Reply To: raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      by cepacs ·

      In reply to raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      Wow, do NOT believe the remark about raid 5 having better performance… that person didn’t have a clue! It’s this simple, choose raid 10 for performance, raid 5 if you can’t afford or justify the expense of raid 10. When you are writing to an array, raid 10 WAY outperforms raid 5. Check out this link and notice the performance on writes.
      http://techreport.com/articles.x/9124/7

      When you are talking about a database server, the answer is raid 10 hands down!

    • #2970191

      RAID 10 is a winner IMO

      by techrepublic ·

      In reply to raid 5/4 disks vs raid 10 with 4 disks

      The truth is that every case is very different. It depends on your read/write profile, what size and speed disks you have, etc.
      I’ve found that you can get the best performance for your money if you use RAID 10 on bigger slightly slower disks than you can using RAID 5 on smaller faster disks.
      Everything is explained here:
      http://www.yonahruss.com/2008/11/raid-10-vs-raid-5-performance-cost.html

Viewing 5 reply threads