Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
It's very marginal to be honest, assuming there's no controller bottleneck...
12x SATA in RAID10 should give something like 600 IOPS minimum, 12x 15k SAS in RAID5 should give...about 600 IOPS minimum. SAS will likely perform better in real life due to reduced seek times but it'll be fairly marginal.
Personally with so many disks (and them being a reasonable size) I wouldn't be happy with RAID5, but I wouldn't much like RAID10 either (though RAID10 is ever so slightly better, if you loose the right disks you can loose more than 1, RAID5 is you loose more than 1 your data is gone).
I'd drop it to RAID6 or RAID10 + hotspare and suck up the loss of space.
Oh - all that's write IOPS of course, read IOPS are merely a function of the number of disks and their IOPS so 12x SAS could be up to 50% quicker than 12x SATA
12x SATA in RAID10 should give something like 600 IOPS minimum, 12x 15k SAS in RAID5 should give...about 600 IOPS minimum. SAS will likely perform better in real life due to reduced seek times but it'll be fairly marginal.
Personally with so many disks (and them being a reasonable size) I wouldn't be happy with RAID5, but I wouldn't much like RAID10 either (though RAID10 is ever so slightly better, if you loose the right disks you can loose more than 1, RAID5 is you loose more than 1 your data is gone).
I'd drop it to RAID6 or RAID10 + hotspare and suck up the loss of space.
Oh - all that's write IOPS of course, read IOPS are merely a function of the number of disks and their IOPS so 12x SAS could be up to 50% quicker than 12x SATA