Since it's striped I would expect RAID 5 to be faster than RAID 1 generally,
but I've read some vague references (in this link and elsewhere) to lower
write performance in 5 than in 1. Why would that be so?
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Since it's striped I would expect RAID 5 to be faster than RAID 1 generally,
> but I've read some vague references (in this link and elsewhere) to lower
> write performance in 5 than in 1. Why would that be so?
>
> http://www.msexchange.org/articles/T...-Exchange.html
Indeed, RAID 5 (usually) is much slower that RAID 1 in such cases,
especially if you use RAID 5 array for such a purpose without a lot of
cache, battery backup etc.
RAID 5 is not recommended array for transaction logs not only in
Exchange environment, but also in all other environments.
Previously Tom Del Rosso <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote:
> Since it's striped I would expect RAID 5 to be faster than RAID 1 generally,
> but I've read some vague references (in this link and elsewhere) to lower
> write performance in 5 than in 1. Why would that be so?
Unkess you rite exactly in stripe size, in RAID5 you have to
read the rest of the stripe from the other drives, before
writing (to do the checksum). With RAID1 you just write,
regardless of size. This is mostly an issue for small accesses.
"Igor Batinic" <_ime_._prezime_@email.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:g37op6$8pq$1@localhost.localdomain
> Hi!
>
> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > Since it's striped I would expect RAID 5 to be faster than RAID 1
> > generally, but I've read some vague references (in this link and
> > elsewhere) to lower write performance in 5 than in 1. Why would
> > that be so?
> >
> > http://www.msexchange.org/articles/T...-Exchange.html
>
> Indeed, RAID 5 (usually) is much slower that RAID 1 in such cases,
> especially if you use RAID 5 array for such a purpose without a lot of
> cache, battery backup etc.
>
> RAID 5 is not recommended array for transaction logs not only in
> Exchange environment, but also in all other environments.
But why is it slower in write mode? Does the controller write the parity
multiple times even when all the drives are modified?
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6bpsmpF3d9kneU2@mid.individual.net
>
> Unkess you rite exactly in stripe size, in RAID5 you have to
> read the rest of the stripe from the other drives, before
> writing (to do the checksum). With RAID1 you just write,
> regardless of size. This is mostly an issue for small accesses.
Thanks.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> "Igor Batinic" <_ime_._prezime_@email.htnet.hr> wrote in message
> news:g37op6$8pq$1@localhost.localdomain
>>
>> Indeed, RAID 5 (usually) is much slower that RAID 1 in such cases,
>> especially if you use RAID 5 array for such a purpose without a lot of
>> cache, battery backup etc.
>>
>> RAID 5 is not recommended array for transaction logs not only in
>> Exchange environment, but also in all other environments.
>
> But why is it slower in write mode? Does the controller write the parity
> multiple times even when all the drives are modified?
Transaction (usually) are small records, and also usually each
transaction is written only to one disk in array. RAID 5 is most
efficient when "full stroke write" is usual.
That means: if small record is written to only one or two disks in
array, worst case scenario is to read data from all other disks,
calculate parity and then new data must be written to a couple disks in
array.
Therefore RAID 5 is not recommended array for any intensive I/O operation.
Tom Del Rosso <td_03@att.net.invalid> kenjka:
> Since it's striped I would expect RAID 5 to be faster than RAID 1 generally,
> but I've read some vague references (in this link and elsewhere) to lower
> write performance in 5 than in 1. Why would that be so?
<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in message
news:g5i0m9$pb7$1@news1.carnet.hr
> Tom Del Rosso <td_03@att.net.invalid> kenjka:
> > Since it's striped I would expect RAID 5 to be faster than RAID 1
> > generally, but I've read some vague references (in this link and
> > elsewhere) to lower write performance in 5 than in 1. Why would
> > that be so?
>
> > http://www.msexchange.org/articles/T...-Exchange.html
>
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~pattrsn/.../Lecture13.pdf
>
> From one of the guys that invented RAID... Page 11 iz what you want to
> see...
Thanks a lot.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
RAID 5 write performance 
Linear Mode
