>For caching disks:-
>in order of preference for performance
>1)volume(best, unless your data REALLY critical, then
>go down the list)
>2)raid 1(mirror, very costly)
>3)raid 5
>4)raid 0(i was surprised when i first heard it, can't
>quite remember the reason)
How can RAID0 have worse performance than RAID5? RAID0 was
designed to optimize disk write performance by striping writes
across multiple disks.
I would think that RAID0 would at least outperform RAID1.
Do you have any benchmark data on this?
Adam
Received on Fri Aug 08 2003 - 17:24:23 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:18:47 MST