On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:00 -0700, David G. Miller wrote: > 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 > No kidding. Most of the files will be from media in the first place so the biggest issue would be re-installing it on the server. Now I will backup but to external HD's as this is now a low cost approach.
