Bob Jones wrote:
> "HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.02.23.25.39.864182_at_telus.net...
>
>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:48:59 +0000, Randy Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks, an excellent article. Mr. Kagel doesn't seem very fond of RAID 5.
>>
>>He's not the only one - look at the list of BAARFers
>>
>>--
>>Hans Forbrich
>>Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
>>mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
>>*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***
>>
>
>
> I have read many articles like that. They always seem to lack practicality.
> The notion of "RAID 5 is bad" is very misleading. It has its pros and cons
> just like any other RAIDs. Whether to use it is heavily application
> dependent.
>
> If RAID 5 is all that bad, why is it so widely used and supported?
>
>
RAID 5 has a performance penalty when writing; lots of
Applications write...
RAID 5 leaves you with an expensive trash can when a second drive
goes bad. Any other RAID configuration would need the *mirror* drive
to fail, not just *any*, as with RAID 5. Not an unlikely scenario,
with storage solutions being bought at a certain point in time, it's
quite likely one batch of disks is being deployed.
If one goes, chances are high others go as well.
--
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Top-posting is one way to shut me up...
Received on Sat Dec 03 2005 - 10:35:17 CST
