Depending on your service level requirments I would argue there's no need
for raid on a cache drive. Since the loss of data is not critical.
RAID 0 will give you the best performance but increases your risk of failure
(more drive heads means faster reads but also more things that can go
wrong). But since the data is not critical and you may have an acceptable
downtime should a failure occur (you could keep spare drives for example)
for speed it's the best.
The system drive should be RAID 1 or hardware RAID.
Hope this helps Regards Steven
From: Armando Treviño López <armando.trevino@xxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [isalist] Hard Disk Fault Tolerance Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:17:39 -0600 Hi, I had installed ISA in a server configured in Mirrored Volumes Hard Drives. I have read in Tom's book that it is better to use RAID 5 Volumes, this because the access to the cache drive is faster, because it doesn't have to write in two drives the same information. Recently I have noted a slower access to Internet in my clients, although I have incremented the percentage of RAM used for cache. Do you think that I will get a better performance if I reinstall the hole server, this time in a RAID 5 volume? or is there another way to solve this without reinstalling the hole system?
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
