Bruno Jargot wrote:
> 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 missed the point: loose 2 disks. Having one spare is
cheating: upon loosing the first, the array gets rebuilt.
OK - in this state, loose two disks - any 2.
RAID10 will only get upset when one disk, that gets broken,
is the mirror of the other broken disk. In other words:
you must loose the complete mirror set (how big a chance
is that?)
--
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Received on Sun Nov 28 2004 - 08:07:05 CST
