SG0-001 · Question #580
To increase storage performance, a storage administrator is setting up a new LUN for an application. This application usually has a high number of reads compared to the number of writes being performe
The correct answer is B. RAID 1. For an application with a high number of reads requiring fault tolerance, RAID 1 (mirroring) provides the best performance as data can be read concurrently from two disks.
Question
To increase storage performance, a storage administrator is setting up a new LUN for an application. This application usually has a high number of reads compared to the number of writes being performed. Which RAID level would provide the BEST performance for this volume, while still maintaining fault tolerance?
Options
- ARAID 0
- BRAID 1
- CRAID 5
- DRAID 6
How the community answered
(66 responses)- A14% (9)
- B74% (49)
- C8% (5)
- D5% (3)
Why each option
For an application with a high number of reads requiring fault tolerance, RAID 1 (mirroring) provides the best performance as data can be read concurrently from two disks.
RAID 0 (striping) offers the best performance overall but provides no fault tolerance; a single drive failure results in complete data loss.
RAID 1 (mirroring) provides excellent read performance because data can be read from either of the mirrored drives, effectively doubling the read bandwidth for the same data. It also maintains fault tolerance by duplicating all data across two drives.
RAID 5 (striping with distributed parity) has good read performance but its write performance is generally slower than RAID 1 due to the parity calculation and write penalty.
RAID 6 (striping with dual distributed parity) provides better fault tolerance than RAID 5 but has even worse write performance than RAID 5 due to the calculation and writing of two parity blocks.
Concept tested: RAID levels-performance and fault tolerance for read-intensive workloads
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/disk-management/raid-levels
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.