Yes, it is old news. On modern SANs that RAID 5 is often fronted by a TB of RAM and that eliminates many of the apparent performance bottlenecks. My chuckle is what happens when the second drive goes out of the RAID 5 configuration before the SAN gets a chance to auto-heal. It is a sad chuckle. /Hans On 15/11/2011 3:12 PM, Tim Gorman wrote: > There has not been any "breakthrough" in RAID5 technology, and advances > in HDD throughput (if any) or caching will improve both RAID5 and RAID10 > together. > I've been in meetings where the storage sales rep, when asked about the > performance of RAID5 vs RAID10, dismissively waves his hand and snorts, > "That's old news", which is true, but doesn't answer the question. > > Caveat emptor. > > > On 11/15/2011 2:54 PM, Karl Arao wrote: >> I've encountered a scenario before where the customer allocated >> 5 LUNs for the DATA >> and 4 LUNs for the RECO >> and then I asked him the RAID configuration behind those LUNs.. and he >> told me that the DATA are RAID5, then the RECO are RAID10.. >> >> well, I don't want to "argue" which one is better or faster but I let >> our decisions based on facts,numbers,figures >> >> Since we are just on the build stage of the RAC environment.. I >> insisted that we run some benchmarks against the RAID5 and RAID10 >> disks and whatever the results of the benchmarks will decide where we >> will place the DATA diskgroup.. luckily he has an open mind.. >> >> apparently the RAID10 was 2x faster.. >> >> See the results here >> http://karlarao.tiddlyspot.com/#%5B%5BRAID5%20and%20RAID10%20comparison%5D%5D >> >> >> >> -- >> Karl Arao >> karlarao.wordpress.com<http://karlarao.wordpress.com> >> karlarao.tiddlyspot.com<http://karlarao.tiddlyspot.com> > > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l