RAID 50 vs RAID 6

A couple of OS versions ago EQL added RAID 6 as an option. I understand the differences in RAID types and the general pros/cons with regard to data protection (which is compelling). What I'm not totally sure about is the difference in performance. There seems to be conflicting performance data out there so I'm asking any EQL fanboys or anyone that might know... is it worth clicking the button to make my SATA pool (mix drive sizes up to TB) RAID 6 instead of RAID 50?
Discussion started by ChrisFricke , on 12 October 12:29 PM
Replies
john.gallucci, Saturday, October 24, 2009
john.gallucci
There is a lot of talk about the performance, but for an EQL it depends on what you are trying to do. For read performance, both RAID6 and RAID50 perform the same. RAID50 has a capacity advantage, while RAID6 offers better protection. As for write performance, RAID50 performs better because of the stripped disks. The question I'm not really sure about is "how much better?"

The EQL controller is fast, and in a real-world configuraiton you probalby wouldn't notice a difference. What you really need to ask yourself is "Do I care about losing capacity to gain a marginal probability of protection?" In a RAID50 you technically can lose 2 disks at once as long as the disks aren't in the same RAID group. The main selling point of RAID6 is that you are protected from a disk failure during a re-build. With large RAID configuraitons this is where RAID6 looks attractive. With EQL the RAID50 is broken up into several RAID5 groups, so your rebuild times are a lot faster than with RAID6.

Hope this helps answer your question.

-----------
My config: 3 Dell EQL PS5000 Arrays
-PS5000XV - RAID10
-PS5000X - RAID50
-PS5000E - RAID5