2 Oct
2009
2 Oct
'09
8:22 p.m.
On Friday 02 October 2009 22:18:55 Joe Hartley wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 22:07:40 +0200
Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
Especially on backup systems raid5 is very bad! The chances of a second disk
dying during recovery are much higher then with raid1(0) because all disks
have to be read to reconstruct the missing one. And as you probably don't have
all raid5 disks from different vendors/productions, the risk rises even more.
When you have two series of disks (each of the same branch/production) make
raid1 with one disk of each vendor and combine them with raid0 or lvm...
Arnold
On Friday 02 October 2009 21:29:41 Giorgio
wrote:
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! Did anybody tried to install AVLinux with raid
5?Thank you
I don't want to start a flame-war but all raids starting with f
are
considered bad: http://www.baarf.com/