Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
>> If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can
>> get very good throughput. If you're looking at read only / read
>> mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But
>> RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat
>> it.
>>
>
> I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives.
> Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation?
>
>
>
I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where there
is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance. If one
of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data will
happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail the
system can keep going. Giving you time to shut down and replace the
bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace. I just
went through failed drives on Email server a few months ago. This a
case where i told the client the server is 5 years old time to replace
it about 3 months latter i get a call "the server is really slow". It
turned out 1 of the drives in the RAID 10 had failed. The client
allowed me to order a new server at that point.