Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(1) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

The RAID10 are again somewhat faster than the RAID0 at short queue depths but cannot oppose it at long queue depths.

RAID5 is preferable to RAID6 for workstations. Calculating a second checksum is a burden that lowers the array’s performance greatly. The degraded RAID6 without two disks is very slow, being inferior to the single disk even.

The RAID10 and RAID0 now score almost the same amount of points. The checksum-based arrays cannot compete anymore: the additional operations cannot be made totally free in terms of performance. As a result, even the eight-disk RAID5 is inferior to the RAID0 and RAID10 built out of four disks.

When the test zone is limited to 32 gigabytes, workstations prefer RAID0 to mirror arrays without any limitations.

There are almost no changes among the checksum-based arrays except that the degraded RAID6 without two disks feels somewhat better here.

The performance ratings confirm the obvious: the RAID0 arrays meet no competition from same-size arrays of other types.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 1
Discussion started: 05/23/09 02:02:06 AM
Latest comment: 05/23/09 02:02:06 AM

View comments

Add your Comment