RAID 5 vs RAID 10

[TheNinja]

So I've read a lot but still can't decide between RAID 5 vs RAID 10. These will be 10k RPM Ultra302 SCSI drives. I'll be buying 6 drives (probably 73GB drives b/c I don't need a ton of space). It has some processes constantly running and has some large FoxPro files on it. It is mainly a file server / database server. I may consolidate 2 or more servers into this one. What's my best choice here?

 

[Hobbzilla]

If this is a database server I would go with RAID 10 (aka RAID 1+0) for performance reasons. Also, you will want to make sure if it is available to utilize separate scsi channels for the RAID1 members.

 

[Adul]

raid 5 will get you great read performance, but be slower on write due to parity. You will get the space of (N - 1) * drive size

RAID 10 will be fast both in read and write performance at the cost of losing 1/2 your disks for mirroring or N/2 * drive size

 

[GrammatonJP]

I use an cx500, Each db is on it's own RAID 10 and each log is in RAID 1..

I like raid 10 but you should bench out your system before deploying...

if you're db is read/write, I would use R10, if it's mostly READ and little write, R5 might do it..

 

[TheNinja]

thanks guys, they are all great comments. As far as fault tolerance, I'm guessing RAID 5 with an online spare is a little more fault tolerate b/c you can lose any 2 disks and still be ok. Whereas with RAID 10, you can lose many disks as long as they aren't the same mirrored set, whichI guess you just hope doesn't happen.

 

[TheNinja]

if anyone is interested, I decided on a split backplane with RAID 1 / RAID 10 (2 + 4 drives with 73gb in the front 2 and 146gb in the back 4).

Thanks again.

 

[bwnv]

Originally posted by: TheNinja
thanks guys, they are all great comments. As far as fault tolerance, I'm guessing RAID 5 with an online spare is a little more fault tolerate b/c you can lose any 2 disks and still be ok. Whereas with RAID 10, you can lose many disks as long as they aren't the same mirrored set, whichI guess you just hope doesn't happen.

Not true, the online spare doesn't get populated with data until a drive dies. Might want to have a look at todays article over at Tom's Hardware about SAS, could save yourself a ton of money vs. SCSI.

Edit: Linky

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: bwnv

Originally posted by: TheNinja
thanks guys, they are all great comments. As far as fault tolerance, I'm guessing RAID 5 with an online spare is a little more fault tolerate b/c you can lose any 2 disks and still be ok. Whereas with RAID 10, you can lose many disks as long as they aren't the same mirrored set, whichI guess you just hope doesn't happen.

Not true, the online spare doesn't get populated with data until a drive dies. Might want to have a look at todays article over at Tom's Hardware about SAS, could save yourself a ton of money vs. SCSI.

Edit: Linky

ya, I should have specified....I can lose any 2 disks, as long as they are not within a few hours of each other and the spare has time to rebuild. I will read that article right now, thanks. For now I need something quick and easy that I know how to handle. This SAS might definitely be something for me in the future.