|
RAID5. The slower writes issue seems to be less of a concern nowadays as the main reason for it - parity calculations - is rendered almost irrelevant by faster RAID controller CPUs and decent caches. Also consider RAID5 vs. 1: Fewer disks not only cost less initially but take less space, consume less power, and generate less heat. On a modern system, the only major down side is data loss if a second drive fails before the first failed drive is repaired/replaced. Exceedingly rare. If doing PC-class RAID on-the-cheap, you could run in to issues if the RAID card itself fails. Namely, if the replacement card will recognize your existing parity set. >From an app perspective, web serving doesn't do much disk I/O beyond startup and reading pages into cache. Back-end CGIs might do disk I/O, but basic web serving isn't horribly disk dependent. RAM for caching is usually more important.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.