stilmon wrote:
IM sorry, i meant to say raid 1
Dear God I'm glad you said that.. I shudder every time someone here recommends RAID 0 "for performance".
Honestly the best practise is down to your requirements. Personally I favour RAID5 because on modern hardware, the performance penalty is negligible over RAID1, but the wasted storage space is significant.
There's plenty of legacy advice around RAID5 being too slow that someone is bound to bring up. I can only suggest trying it for yourself. Everyone ever has said "my application requires high IO" but there's a huge amount of variation regarding just how high they need it. If your IO was really that high, the entire array would be SSD, and no "best practice RAID level" would workaround that.