Am I wrong? If not, how do I prove it short of actually setting up multiple environments for comparison?
Testing aside, if you are running an OLTP update intensive (I/O or bandwidth) environment with lots of random or sequential writes, generally speaking, even with lots of cache, avoid RAID-5 if you can -- regardless of the drive type -- if performance is absolutely crucial to you. In terms of drive preferences, again from a general standpoint, 15 K Fibre Channel (FC) and SAS drives are preferred followed by 10 K FC and SAS (or U320 SCSI) disk drives. There are some storage systems and external appliances that provide additional caching and I/O acceleration capability to mask the performance impact of RAID-5 and slower SATA disk drives.
Again, generally speaking, RAID-1 or 0+1 or 1+0 are also preferred over RAID-5 to avoid parity overhead. If your application or specific tables and objects are heavy I/O bound, then look at solid state disk (SSD), however exercise caution to make sure that you are using SDRAM and not NAND flash RAM for I/O intensive data. NAND flash is less expensive and found in hybrid disk drives or USB thumb drives. However, it is also slower than the more expensive SDRAM commonly used as cache or memory for servers.
Dig deeper on SAN management
Related Q&A from Greg Schulz
Cloud storage can be less expensive from a cost-per-gigabyte perspective, but it's important not to lose sight of other benefits as a value ...continue reading
Implementing hybrid clouds for backup and DR is a good place to start to eventually leverage other uses for the cloud, says analyst Greg Schulz.continue reading
Using solid-state in the cloud can boost performance, but first be sure you look past cost per gigabyte and are aware of any constraints from ...continue reading
Have a question for an expert?
Please add a title for your question
Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.