<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
RAID-5 is good for first-echelon file servers and Exchange servers.
RAID-10 is much better, certainly, but RAID-5 is much better than
RAID-1 for those purposes.<br>
<br>
Of course, for audio I want it all in RAM cache :-)<br>
<br>
J.E.B.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20091002161855.69b7a61b.jh@brainiac.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't want to start a flame-war but all raids starting with f are considered
bad: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.baarf.com/">http://www.baarf.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You beat me to this, Arnold. The only thing I'd use RAID 5 for is an
array of disks where performance really doesn't matter to me, like a
disk-based backup server. I'd never use RAID 5 on a system where
performance mattered at all to me, like my studio machine!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>