RAID 5 better for read only databases than RAID 10 ?

We have a farm of servers that we replicate data to as a scale out farm. The
only thing writing to it is from replication. Its like our read only farm.
Is it better to go RAID 5 from a performance perspective as compared to RAID
10 ? We are not concerned about saving on space, but want to squeeze every
ounce of performance from a well configured server.
ThanksGeneral opinion says RAID5 provides redundancy and good read performance.
RAID1 is good for write performance + redundancy. RAID10 is good for mixed
environments (read\write).
However, the results of these tests may change according to your hardware.
So it would be the best if you could try this out in your own specific
environment. You decide which is the best one for you.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:eJEWgIrRIHA.5136@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have a farm of servers that we replicate data to as a scale out farm.
> The only thing writing to it is from replication. Its like our read only
> farm.
> Is it better to go RAID 5 from a performance perspective as compared to
> RAID 10 ? We are not concerned about saving on space, but want to squeeze
> every ounce of performance from a well configured server.
> Thanks|||For the same number of disk spindles, RAID 5 should outperform RAID 10 for
read-only databases.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:eJEWgIrRIHA.5136@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have a farm of servers that we replicate data to as a scale out farm.
> The only thing writing to it is from replication. Its like our read only
> farm.
> Is it better to go RAID 5 from a performance perspective as compared to
> RAID 10 ? We are not concerned about saving on space, but want to squeeze
> every ounce of performance from a well configured server.
> Thanks|||If saving space is not an issue, I'd go with RAID10 and configure sufficient
number of spindles to get the required performance.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> We have a farm of servers that we replicate data to as a scale out farm. The
> only thing writing to it is from replication. Its like our read only farm.
> Is it better to go RAID 5 from a performance perspective as compared to RAID
> 10 ? We are not concerned about saving on space, but want to squeeze every
> ounce of performance from a well configured server.
> Thanks
>