Re: [HELP] RAID chunk-size - alternatives
Since I'm feeling bored at the moment...
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:29:28PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> typically a minimum of 2 disks used for raid0 or raid1...
> raid1(mirroring) protects against one disk failure
> ( one disk's capacity is used as a redundant copy and not for user)
> ( 50% lost of space )
Correction: Protects against loss of all-but-one disks. A 10-way
mirror can drop 9 disks without losing any data.
> raid0(stripping) does not help for disk failures
A stripe set is more vulnerable to disk failure than a non-RAID
solution. If you're not using RAID, a failed drive only takes out
the data on that one disk. With RAID0, a failed drive will cost you
most (if not all) of the data on the array.
> typically 5 disks for raid5 ...
> ( 3 disks mininum -- 1/3 of your disks lost to parity
> ( 4 disks .......... 1/4 of your disks lost to parity
> ( 5 disks .......... 1/5 of your disks lost to parity
Don't know where you got the "typically 5 disks" bit from. RAID5
costs you one drive's worth of capacity. Also, if I were to set up a
5-disk RAID5 for critical data, I'd go with 4 active disks, plus one
> typically raid01 - needs 4 disks ...
> first data is stripped across 2 disks than its mirrored to 2 more disks
> - due to mirroring... 2 disks is lost for "mirror"
Minimum 4 disks, but any larger even number of active disks will work.
Here again, if dealing with important data, I'd add an odd disk to the
array as a spare.
> and after its all said and done... pull out a disk (simulated disk crash)
> and see if you're data is still intact
Yep. It's the only way to be sure.
When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists
have already won. - reverius
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com