Comparing RAID Level and Concatenation Performance

Trouble Shooting information related to Servers & Storage (HP, DELL, IBM)

Comparing RAID Level and Concatenation Performance

Unread postby rajeevmahura » Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:28 am

Comparing RAID Level and Concatenation Performance
The following table compares the performance characteristics associated with the more common RAID levels. This table provides general guidelines for choosing a RAID level. Keep in mind the needs of your particular environment when choosing a RAID level.

NOTE:
The following table does not show all RAID levels supported by Storage Management.

N = Number of array disks
X = Number of RAID sets
RAID Level and Concatenation Performance Comparison
RAID Level Data Availability Read Performance Write Performance Rebuild Performance Minimum Disks Required Suggested Uses
Concatenation No gain No gain No gain N/A 1 or 2 depending on the controller More cost efficient than redundant RAID levels, use for noncritical data
RAID 0 None Very good Very good N/A N Noncritical data
RAID 1 Excellent Very good Good Good 2N (N = 1) Small databases, database logs, critical information
RAID 5 Good Sequential reads: good. Transactional reads: Very good Fair, unless using write-back cache Poor N + 1(N = at least two disks) Databases and other read-intensive transactional uses
RAID 10 Excellent Very good Fair Good 2N x X Data-intensive environments (large records)
RAID 50 Excellent Very good Fair Fair N + 2 (N = at least 4) Medium-sized transactional or data-intensive uses
--Regards--
Rajeev Mahura
Servers & Storage Professional
http://about.me/rajeevmahura
User avatar
rajeevmahura
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:22 pm
Location: Bangalore | New Delhi
Full Name: Rajeev Mahura
Date Of Birth: 15 Jan 1984
Address: New Delhi
Profession: DOEACC Trainer
DOEACC Center: DOEACC DELHI
Mobile No: 0

Return to Servers & Storage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest