On mySimon: See-Through Blouses Add Touch of Romance
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 15:
Next »
No performance difference
First of all, most people tell me RAID10 (1+0) is better than RAID 0+1, but only in the sense that RAID10 has better degraded performance where one of the drives have failed. No one ever claims that RAID10 is faster than RAID 0+1 in normal operation. However, I am running RAID10 so that's a moot point in my RAID paper. I'm essentially testing the "better" RAID 1 and 0 solution. Therefore I would not expect RAID 0+1 to do any better (or worse in a healthy state).

As for reliability, RAID10 is statistically better off for a multi-drive failure than RAID 0+1.
Posted by: georgeou   Posted on: 05/09/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

No performance difference  georgeou | 05/09/07
One more note on RAID5 versus RAID1  georgeou | 05/09/07
Full stripe RAID 5 writes are fast  R Harris ZDNet Moderator | 05/11/07
RAID5 still slower on read/write  georgeou | 05/16/07
RAID 5 has good read performance  meh130@... | 05/11/07
More read less write is suitable for RAID 5  nixstor | 05/12/07
RAID  nlkeefer@... | 05/13/07
Raid 0+1 vs Raid 1+0  rboklewski | 06/27/07
RE: RAID 1 0 is the Cadillac of RAID  potty m | 09/09/07
Your maths is incorrect  njpayne | 09/19/07
Nice theories but...  verelse | 12/18/08
Animals may NOT have been harmed but  guiri | 04/13/09
RE: RAID 1 0 is the Cadillac of RAID  monkeyman1140@... | 05/20/09
RE: RAID 1 0 is the Cadillac of RAID  Prosyga | 06/20/09
RE: RAID 1 0 is the Cadillac of RAID  Ninevah | 11/11/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement