🚀 go-pugleaf

A general qualified yes.

It is inherent in the design of RAID 5 that you will have to do more writes
than a RAID 1 configuration.

My general rule of thumb ( In mission critical enviroments ) is to run with
RAID 1+0 for production and production support machines. For development and
other non-critical machines run either RAID 5, or JBOD depending on how
quickly and accurately the machine can be recovered. In my view ( This is
just my opinion !!) RAID 5 is lower cost form of data protection.

A lot of these decisions need to based on the classic triangle. Ie Cost,
Performance, Availability. Having an understanding of what your business
requirement is, as well as the technologies available are the key to
selecting what is "best".

Cheers
Steven Perez - steve@uninet.demon.co.uk


Shaman wrote in message <37F548BD.AFB2D67@ihug.co.nz>...
>Hi
>
>Anyway back to the topic (RAid 1 vs 5; write performance  and overall
>performance for a file and print server with a hardware RAID card.)
>
>I was aware of the need to calculate parity during the write in RAID 5 but
I
>thought the ability to write a small peice of the whole file to each disk
(in
>RAID 5) would be more significant timewise.
>
>Does RAID 5 ever get better than RAID 1,  as you add disks?
>
>ie RAID 1 vs   a  8  Disk RAID 5
>is RAID 1 still better?
>
>David
>
>
>
>Jim Pappe wrote:
>
>> with Raid 5 plus hot spare - 2 drive can fail ..
>> www.raidexpert.com
>>
>> Mark Landin <m555@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:37e660eb.12904299@news.earthlink.net...
>> > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:54:19 +0100, "Steven Perez"
>> > <steve@uninet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Kenneth:
>> > >
>> > >Go with RAID 1/0  Stripe, and mirror. This will give the very best
>> > >performance, and availability, although it will give the least amount
of
>> > >storage.
>> >
>> > How is RAID 0/1 more "available" than RAID 5?
>> >
>> >
>