RAID5 v RAID10 | The Perimeter

KryptosKiller

From what I can tell RAID 5 is better for redundancy where as RAID10 or RAID 1+0 has better performance.

I know with RAID5 if a drive fails then the sever will still boot... Which is what I think is the great need.

What I'm not sure about is, is that the case with RAID10, if a drive fails and it has the OS installed on that RAID10 configuration will it still boot the OS?

Thanks

KryptosKiller

This post is displayed on the Active Threads on the home page. But I can't see in the forum... is this a bug?

gmarchetti

Yes, it will boot. The o/s volume will be striped AND mirrored, so the o/s will boot from the mirror. I am assuming hardware-based RAID, by the way.

KingCobra
Eat My Plasma

Yes, the perimeter forum has a bug and it is not displayed.

Duncan
Just coding 4 fun!

We have been working on the bug and we believe it has now been resolved

KryptosKiller

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it is hardware based. Would it not work if software based?

KryptosKiller

Yes it is hardware, will it not work if software?

gmarchetti

In principle, it should, but I have not tried it, hence I am reluctant to recommend it.

ye110wbeard
I'm Sean - I'm a PC - and I'm ENERGIZED

Software Raid 10? Presuming the System is booting from a non-software raid partition (Since it has to load the raid partition) theoretically it should.

But since Raid SATA and SAS controllers from Intel and Promise have gotten pretty expensive I wouldn't bother playing with it myself.

Cool but hardware kicks better.

Of course now that Terabyte drives are out, a pair of those mirrored should be interesting and nice a simple.... Smiley