Douglas Furlong wrote: > RAID0 = Two (or more) disks with data spread over them, there is no > redundancy in this configuration One note: there are two kinds of RAID-0, stripe and concat(linear). > In a RAID10 set up, if you have any two drives in a single RAID1 > configuration, fail then the entire raid array is lost, as RAID0 > provides no redundancy (but can provide performance improvements). with 4 disk: in a RAID-10 can fail 2 disks from different raid-1, RAID-01 only can fail _one_ disk. > I believe in a RAID 5 configuration, depending on the number of disks > present in the actual array, you can have multiple disk failures and for > the system to still be functional, so long as said disk failures are not > next to each other. If the disks are next to each other, then there will > always be a total failure, which is in my opinion is very similar to the > multiple disk failures in a RAID1 causing the entire RAID0 to fail. RAID-5 _only_ can fail one disk. And with more than 14 disk the chance of errors is higher. raid 5 is cheaper, but 10 is better in general. -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically
