RAID Cards performance issue

[Scott Balneaves]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:40:44AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> Not surprisingly, raid5 beat the pants off raid10. Why? For six disks, 
> on raid5, you have all six disks for input and output. On raid10, you 
> need to make three mirrors and so you are effectively reduced to three 
> disks for input and output.

Personally, I'd argue that's a broken RAID10, since, for reading at least, you
should be able to read off BOTH sides of the mirror, typically doubling your
read speed.

I've seen study after study indicating that, for most applications, RAID10
outperforms RAID5, and my own personal experience is that way as well.  I
suspect we're quickly edging into the realm of religious discussion, so we'll
just leave things pat, and say, "Your Mileage May Vary, personal testing on
your hardware setup will determine the best course of action".

That being said, and since you're obviously up on RAID5, any suggestions for
the original poster?

Scott

-- 
Scott L. Balneaves | Grass is the forgiveness of nature - her constant
Systems Department | benediction.  Forests decay, harvests perish, flowers
Legal Aid Manitoba | vanish, but grass is immortal.  -- Brian Ingalls