Re: RAID 0+1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RAID 0+1
From: Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:12:41 -0800
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603211338410.9952@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4063.203.88.231.77.1142916750.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1142949624.12720.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44205FBE.8070403@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603211338410.9952@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313)

Benjamin Franz wrote:

With six drives, RAID10 can withstand 1 failed drive guaranteed, 2failed drives with an 80% probability and 3 simultaneously failed driveswith a probability of 40%. Even with only 4 drives in a RAID10 array,you still get a 67% chance of surviving a two drive failure situation.RAID10 is noticably more robust than RAID5 - which can never withstandmore than one simultaneous drive failure.


Well said.

References:
- RAID 0+1
  - From: jakosalem
- Re: RAID 0+1
  - From: Jeff Vian
- Re: RAID 0+1
  - From: Gordon Messmer
- Re: RAID 0+1
  - From: Benjamin Franz

Prev by Date: FC5: tvtime and nv driver problem in fullscreen
Next by Date: Re: BitTorrent not slow, but users are clueless
Previous by thread: Re: RAID 0+1
Next by thread: Re: RAID 0+1
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Current Fedora Users] [Fedora Desktop] [Fedora SELinux] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools] [Fedora Docs]