Re: RAID 5 vs RAID 10 benchmark

From: IANAL_VISTA <IANAL_Vista_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:12:36 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns95AD7C35076D2SunnySD@68.6.19.6>

see_at_reply-to.invalid (Bruno Jargot) wrote in news:1gnvkn8.59mfua1rzpu5sN%see_at_reply-to.invalid:

> Frank van Bortel <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote:
>

>> Basic message: RAID10 (or 1+0) is *safer* than RAID5,
>> because you can *never* loose 2 disks in RAID5 without
>> serious disruption (involving restoring of backups).

>
> With an array of 7 disks in RAID 5 and 1 disk in spare, you're living
> dangerously only for the duration of the array rebuild.
> I think this configuration has a pretty good redundancy / price rapport.
>

You are entitled to your opinion & accepting the risks associated.

I've witnessed the following real world happening with a system configured EXACTLY as you described.

All is working OK.
A disk in the RAID-5 volume died.
The spare was automagically brought into the volume.
Processing continued without any notice of event #2.
A second disk died.
Remaining data was corrupted & unrecoverable; except from backups.

You put down your money & take your chances.

HTH & YMMV HAND! Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 14:12:36 CST