Raid 10과 Raid 1. Ǻ12;lj12;,163;1060; 더 빠를까요?

NJ13;1008; 같다 1077;니다.

그런데, 글쓴1060;lj16; "same filegroup"1068;ǐ12;lj16; 여러개1032; Raid 11012; 만드lj16; ,163;보다 Ȣ16;나1032; Raid 101012; 더 추천합니다.

1060;유lj16; 결론에 1080;습니다.

다른 파1068;그룹1068;ᅆ1;우에lj16;???

여러개1032; Raid 1 그룹1060; 더 1339;습니다. 최근 현업서버에서 1089;업한 결과 1077;니다.

1U 서버에 1109;착.108; 4개1032; 디스크를 Raid 101004;/196; 한,163;과, 2개 2개 묶Ǻ12;서 2개1032; Raid 11004;/196; 한 ,163;.

2개1032; Raid 11060; 현1200;Ȣ16;,172; 빠른 성능과 iostat1032; Disk IO1032; 합1060; 낮,172; 나오고 1080;습니다.

아래1032; Plan 1과 2lj16; 서비스Ȣ16;고 1080;lj16; 웹사1060;트1032; 상황에 따라 다르,192;1648;만,

개1064;1201;1004;/196;lj16; 2를 더 선호 합니다. MySQL1032; Data와 Log가 서/196; 다른 Raid 1에 1080;,144;든요.

1U - 4디스크 웹서버 (Plan 1)

Raid 1 : OS + MySQL (log) + Web Page

Raid 1 : MySQL (data)

Conclusion 
The point of these comparisons is to show that, in the most simplistic way, if you are already using multiple RAID 1 drives which hold data files in the same filegroup youR17;re not as bad off performance-wise as you may think. That said, if youR17;re setting up a server from scratch IR17;d recommend RAID 10 over multiple RAID 1R17;s for two reasons:

1. TodayR17;s hardware based RAID controllers are pretty sophisticated and designed for reading from and writing data to disks in the most efficient way possible. By comparison, SQL ServerR17;s proportional fill algorithm but doesnR17;t understand much about the physical disks on which files reside, nor does SQL Server employ the hardware based caching techniques that are built into controllers (and which were not factored into any of these tests).
2. Towards the end of Tony RogersonR17;s post he mentions that SQL will only round robin writes if there is equal free space in each file in the filegroup. As soon as the free space is different youR17;ll have one set of disks taking more IO than the other. That wonR17;t happen with a single data file on a RAID 10 disk.