Comparing RAID Level And Concatenation Performance

The following table compares the performance characteristics associated with the more common RAID levels. This table provides general guidelines for choosing a RAID level. Evaluate your specific environment requirements before choosing a RAID level.
Table 1. RAID Level and Concatenation Performance Comparison
RAID LevelData Availability Read Performance Write Performance Rebuild Performance Minimum Disks Required Suggested Uses
ConcatenationNo gainNo gainNo gainN/A1 or 2 depending on the controllerMore cost efficient than redundant RAID levels. Use for noncritical data.
RAID 0NoneVery GoodVery GoodN/ANNoncritical data.
RAID 1ExcellentVery GoodGoodGood2N (N = 1)Small databases, database logs, and critical information.
RAID 5GoodSequential reads: good. Transactional reads: Very goodFair, unless using writeback cacheFairN + 1 (N = at least two disks)Databases and other read intensive transactional uses.
RAID 10ExcellentVery GoodFairGood2N x XData intensive environments (large records).
RAID 50GoodVery GoodFairFairN + 2 (N = at least 4)Medium sized transactional or data intensive uses.
RAID 6ExcellentSequential reads: good. Transactional reads: Very goodFair, unless using writeback cachePoorN + 2 (N = at least two disks)Critical information. Databases and other read intensive transactional uses.
RAID 60ExcellentVery GoodFairPoorX x (N + 2) (N = at least 2)Critical information. Medium sized transactional or data intensive uses.

N = Number of physical disks

X = Number of RAID sets