Robin Laing <Robin.Laing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
RAID does not protect against fat fingers. One wrong rm can still mean
you need a back-up.
Cheers,
Dave
--
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
-- Ambrose Bierce
