Re: RAID5

That's also what I've seen.  I'd add that for sequential scans - FTS and other 
similar ops - there is not much difference in read speed between RAID5 and 
RAID10, assuming a stripe across a reasonable number of disks.  I did notice in 
extreme multi-thread load situations that random reads are marginally faster in 
RAID10.
Writes however are a completely different proposition.  RAID5 seems to be 
slower 
there across the board, compared to RAID10.  Not sure if that's because the 
parity generation algorithms are notoriously slow, or some other reason.  But 
it's a fact I've been able to confirm in various setups, from native attached 
disks to large SAN hardware.
Too early to say anything about our new Symmetrix.


-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Allen, Brandon wrote,on my timestamp of 16/11/2011 9:51 AM:
> I'm curious why your reads were so much faster on the RAID10.
 > All else being equal, I'd expect to see the writes faster on RAID10
 > vs. RAID5 (once your cache is exceeded), but not the reads.
 > I suspect there was something else affecting the numbers other
 > than just the RAID level.  As with pretty much everything else,
 > the correct answer on the RAID5 vs. RAID10 question is - it depends.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: