On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The same goes for RAID1.
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> > i like raid5 cause if a disk dies...one can replace it when convenient...
> > while it still sorta keeps going-n-going...
> > ( at least in theory -- as each individual disks gets bigger and bigger...
> > waiting for the system to reload 500Gb of disks or resync the new disk
> > is a looong time ?? )
> >
Jon is right, in this respect RAID1 is still ahead of RAID5 on rebuild
time. And RAID1 does keep going on a disc failure. If you have really
important data, RAID1 over 3 or more drives is not a bag idea, you can
lose one drive and still be able to lose another. On a simple RAID5 array,
lose another drive while the array is reconstructing and prepare to
restore from backup.
I tend to reserve RAID5 for when I need a large storage space that doesn't
see a lot of traffic.
$.02
Bill Carlson
--
Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Opinions are mine,
Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | not my employer's.
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
