Rick Thomas <rbtho...@pobox.com> writes: > Hi Kamil, > > You’d get a bit more space by configuring your 4 drives as a RAID5 > array (3TB usable for RAID5, vs 2TB usable for RAID10). The downside > of RAID5 is that the RAID10 (or the one LV with two RAID1 PVs — they > amount to the same thing for this discussion) can survive loosing two > drives at once — if they happen to be the right two drives: i.e. not > both sides of a single mirrored pair — while RAID5 would not be able > to survive any failure that involved two drives at once. Either > configuration would survive loosing any one single drive, of course. > > If you want to be able to survive simultaneous loss of any two drives, you > should look at RAID6, which would have the same usable capacity (2TB) as the > RAID10.
I though about this, but I'm afraid about performance (calculating control sums ). Needlessly? KJ -- http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html Davis' Law of Traffic Density: The density of rush-hour traffic is directly proportional to 1.5 times the amount of extra time you allow to arrive on time.
