Hi Ian,

If Raid is just for redundance just go with Raid 1, because if one HD fail,
the system does not have to calculate the lost data, just use the another
copy. Data could be read from any disk improving performance and write
speedy are the same as writing to a single disk. Raid 1 have a "bad side"
you just to duplicate the number of disks, Raid 3 and 5 does not have this
problem, you nedd one more disk disk to store ECC data, so if you have 4 x
40GB on Raid 1 you have just 80 GB usable, but if you use raid 3 or 5 you
have 120 GB. Raid 3 and 5 have a good read speed, since can read from
multiple disks, but the write speed are a little decresead since you need
to read data from all disks to build the new ECC data.


Take a look here for a very simple description.

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid5_gci214332,00.html

see you

Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda.
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br


At 16:43 24/01/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi folks,
> two related questions...
>
>1. What filesystem is best on linux for firebird performance?
>2. What level of hardware raid, 1,3,5 is best for firebird
>performance?
>
>The database is small, < 50mb, and raid has been specified for the
>redundancy, not speed.
>
>Regards
> Ian Newby

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/2003


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]