Re: Software RAID and drive failures
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 11:36, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2003-03-10T16:39:36Z, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
[snip]
> > Never heard of putting any more than 2 disks in a mirrorset.
>
> Mirroring can have a nice boost for read access. I'd imagine that such a
> setup would be useful for something like ftp.cdrom.com, where many
> simultaneous read requests (but almost no write requests) are being
> answered.
I bet RAID0 would be even faster. Yes, yes, fragile...
> > Never even thought of it, actually. With more than 2 disks, I'd
> > automatically go with RAID5.
>
> I guess it depends on your needs. Given the money for such a setup, RAID1+0
> (or RAID10, whatever you want to call it) would be faster and possibly more
> robust; as long as at least one drive from each stripe survives, the whole
> filesystem is still available.
They blaze!!! But, given enough (and that means *lots*) cache, RAID5 is
just as fast.
And you're right, the likelihood that a specific disk will puke is
pretty darned low.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
| |
| Spit in one hand, and wish for peace in the other. |
| Guess which is more effective... |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: