On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 00:20, Scott Burns wrote:
> Unless my terminology is wrong, it's only one RAID10 set, that is,
> multiple RAID1 sets making up a RAID0 stripe. RAID1+0 as I think some
> people call it.
>
> However, you are right in that there is no reason you can't make it a
> RAID1+5 with 10 disks or even 15 disks to give the same sorts of
> protection or better than the 12 disk RAID10. I take the rant along the
> lines of "if you're going to the trouble, go with the best you can, and
> RAID5 isn't it". This is why I'm interested in why other's have RAID
> failures and what they plan(ned) to do next.
It sounds like you guys REALLY know this stuff inside out; it might
be the right place to ask a possibly heretical question:
Hardware versus Software RAID
I have a Windows-natured friend who thinks any software raid isn't
worth the setup...but then, he remembers stacker, and stays with the OS
that made it a legend. :)
Meanwhile, I've used simple setups, mostly for longevity and in
places I'd rather not make a road trip. It's a small set, and by NO
means should be construed as an alternative for serious computing, but
for home/hobbyist work, it's solid.
But you guys seem to have had the 'runtime' with these systems that
I haven't. What's your opinion of software RAID (for non-competitive,
home installations)?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian FahrlÃnder Researcher, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://Fahrlander.net
ICQ 5119262
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
