On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 13:28 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > Robin Laing wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 12:13 +0800, Hadders wrote: > >> RAID 6 - less used, but like 5, but handles more than a single disk failure. > > > > Thanks for this information. I will have to look closer at RAID 6 for > > my new file server. > > Naturally, in order to provide the additional redunancy, you sacrifice > more disk space. In a RAID5 set, the parity is stored on the equivalent > of the volume of one disk. Your available space is N-1, where N is the > size of the smallest disk used. In RAID6, the available space is N-2. > The additional redundancy is good if you have a large set of disks, but > if you've got just three, it's probably overkill. RAID5 is the best > solution for a 3 disk set. > I was looking at 5 disks minimum in the new server. The better recovery is what I am concerned with. Just in case. Backing up a TByte of data is a pain. How hard to move from RAID 5 to RAID 6 using software RAID?
