I was hoping to achieve approx. 2x IO (write and read) performance via RAID 0 (by accepting a higher MTBF).
Do believe the performance gains of RAID0 are much lower and/or are not worth it vs the increased server failure rate? >From my understanding, RAID 10 would achieve the read performance benefits of RAID 0, but not the write benefits. I'm also considering RAID 10 to maximize server IO performance. Currently, we're working with 1 CF. Thank you On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Timmy Turner <timm.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure whether the raid 0 gets you anything other than headaches > should one of the drives fail. You can already distribute the > individual Cassandra column families on different drives by just > setting up symlinks to the individual folders. > > 2012/10/30 Ran User <ranuse...@gmail.com>: > > For a server with 4 drive slots only, I'm thinking: > > > > either: > > > > - OS (1 drive) > > - Commit Log (1 drive) > > - Data (2 drives, software raid 0) > > > > vs > > > > - OS + Data (3 drives, software raid 0) > > - Commit Log (1 drive) > > > > or something else? > > > > also, if I can spare the wasted storage, would RAID 10 for cassandra data > > improve read performance and have no effect on write performance? > > > > Thank you! >
