|
[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[NMLUG] RAID0 vs RAID1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Get a RAID5 controller. It requires 3 drives, and stores "left-side
parity" information instead of data. The data can be reconstructed with
2/3rds parity. The upshot is one drive out of 3 can fail and you'll
still run. A second drive failure will kill the whole array though.
Paul Tietjens wrote:
| On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:55:12 -0800 (PST), Tim Emerick
| <timothyemerick@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|>I'm building a replacement samba server. The motherboard has a builtin
|>Promise RAID controller which I intend to use with 2 80gig ATA100 EIDE
HD's.
|>My choices from the controller are RAID0 (mirroring?) or RAID1
(striping?).
|>
|>Applications are fairly basic with an equal amount of both reads and
writes.
|>I understand that if my application was mostly read-only then
mirroring would
|>be better but since I'll be doing both I'm leaning towards striping for
|>performance reasons.
|
|
| Yes striping is better for performance - but last I checked there is
| no stability benefit in Raid0 (striping) at all - if _a_ drive crashes
| ALL data is lost. So if you're looking for something that makes the
| machine more reliable, Raid 0 isn't it.
| _______________________________________________
| NMLUG mailing list
| NMLUG@nmlug.org
| http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCGnz2KaiGM/xGKzQRAsFXAJsGbkzmOQ1R2V5npdgnV02XSpH3sACdG3JU
YUmQcoz6v8rVURvl2wrOvw4=
=jZ1k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
