RAID 5 vs RAID 10 for read only db

Assuming I have a read only database, which ones better RAID 5 or RAID 10
from a performance angle ?
I believe it should be the same. Check if the RAID software supports reads
from the mirror disk also.
On unix Solaris LVM provides this feature on RAID 10.
In that case RAID 10 will be better assuming same no of primary disks as in
RAID 5.
Just keep in mind you are going to need a lot more disks in RAID10 than in
RAID 5 so comparison can be based on the same data on same no of disk on both
of them
with same no. of controllers.
"Hassan" wrote:

> Assuming I have a read only database, which ones better RAID 5 or RAID 10
> from a performance angle ?
>
>
|||Typically RAID10 would provide better performance than RAID5 provided
the rest of the hardware (including array controller) is up to the
task.
Kevin
|||Raid 1+0 is as fast as RAID Levels get.
but for Read only, I'm not sure if the benefits justify the costs.
You might be best served using RAID 5 for Static data.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||Use RAID 10 when more than 10% of all I/Os are writes. Otherwise use RAID 5.
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical Reference
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/4944.asp
Adrian
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeSzSxFUFHA.3188@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Assuming I have a read only database, which ones better RAID 5 or RAID 10
> from a performance angle ?
>
|||For RAID 5, the "penalty" comes in the form of Writes. For Reads the
difference between 1+0 and 5 would probably be negligible.
"Kevin Madsen" <kevin.madsen@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216529.031402.125750@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Typically RAID10 would provide better performance than RAID5 provided
> the rest of the hardware (including array controller) is up to the
> task.
> Kevin
>