--On January 17, 2006 9:10:56 PM -0500 Phillip Susi <[email protected]>
wrote:
I understood you to be saying that a raid-5 was less reliable than a
single disk, which it is not. Maybe I did not read correctly. Yes, a 3
+ n disk raid-5 has a higher chance of failure than a 3 disk raid-5, but
only slightly so, and in any case, a 3 disk raid-5 is FAR more reliable
than a single drive, and only slightly less reliable than a two disk
raid-1 ( though you get 3x the space for only 50% higher cost, so 6x
cheaper cost per byte of storage ).
Yup we're on the same page, we just didn't think we were. It happens :)
R-5 (in theory) could be less reliable than a mirror or possibly a single
drive, but it'd take a pretty obscene number of drives with excessively
large strip size.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
