At 2003-03-10T18:25:06Z, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes: > I bet RAID0 would be even faster. Yes, yes, fragile... Not for concurrent reads. If a file spans more than one physical disk, then at least two drives have to be reading from the same region at the same time. With RAID1, you can have multiple simultaneous reads from different physical locations. > They blaze!!! But, given enough (and that means *lots*) cache, RAID5 is > just as fast. I could see how that could be true, as long as no one process is accessing more than $cache_size of information at once. > And you're right, the likelihood that a specific disk will puke is pretty > darned low. Hence the saying that RAID5 is the poor man's RAID10. :) -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est.
Attachment:
pgpLJc3RppAE_.pgp
Description: PGP signature