To "hardware" RAID 5 or software RAID 5
Robin Laing
Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca
Thu Dec 7 16:46:54 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:00 -0700, David G. Miller wrote:
> Robin Laing <Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca> 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.
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list