Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux? |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
06-21-2006, 03:59 AM
|
#1
|
Member
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 374
Rep:
|
Many Raid1 vs a Raid10
I have a big server, Quad Opteron with 11GB Ram, 1TB storage over 40 SCSI 10k rpm disks. The server is running Oracle on Linux and I want to know which setup would be faster, having the datafiles spread out over 20 Raid 1 arrays or on a single Raid 10 array?
The key words are Random Access since it does largely simultaneous random reads.
There is an argument that it's faster to have all the separate raid 1s since there is less contention on each spindle and hence less seek time. When dealing with multiple requests it's likely that the request will be answered by separate disks which should allow for faster simultaneous responses.
I know raid 5 is too slow and raid 0 is fast, but we need redundancy, so these 2 are not options.
Does anybody know the deep magic behind this stuff, how do 20 Raid 1s compare to a 40 disk Raid10?
|
|
|
06-21-2006, 08:31 AM
|
#2
|
LQ Guru
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,831
|
This site suggests that RAID10 provides "highest performance" over RAID1.
http://www.integratedsolutions.org/raid_ov.htm
Quote:
Level 1 (mirroring)
Applications which require redundancy with fast random writes; entry-level systems where only two drives are available. Small file servers are an example.
Level 0/1 or 10 (mirroring and striping)
Dual level raid, combines multiple mirrored drives (RAID 1) with data striping (RAID 0) into a single array. Provides highest performance with data protection.
|
|
|
|
06-21-2006, 08:37 AM
|
#3
|
Member
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 374
Original Poster
Rep:
|
thanks.
anyone else got any input?
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|