On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 16:48, Massimiliano Ferrero wrote: > Calyth wrote: > > I'm no expert comparing to the other people here who've experimented the > > whole thing out, but I'd think that you might want to get at least 3 IDE > > drives and set up RAID 5 instead. > > I'm no expert either nor I want to start a religious war ;) but... > RAID 5 had much more sense when the cost of disks was huge.
For a home power user who does things like video capture/editing/etc, maybe RAID doesn't make as much sense anymore, but: RAID5, RAID0 & RAID10 still makes sense: 1. In "enterprise" situations, the size & quantity of files is growing exponentially. 2. In the SCSI/FC world, big disks are still very expensive. 3. Speed still means spreading IO across many spindles. That means RAID0, RAID5 & RAID10. > RAID 1 has better performance for reads and small writes, while RAID 5 > is faster for large writes. I totally disagree. RAID5 has to do CRC calculations, and RAID1 doesn't. Only if you stuff a high-quality storage controller with *lots* of cache RAM (like in the 512MB-1GB range) will the performance of RAID5 match that of RAID1. > RAID 1 has the best redundancy, while RAID5 can take one failure for > array (I wouldn't go over 5 disks for array). ?????? RAID1 can only handle 1 failure also!! If you are a decent administrator, you'll act when a disk becomes flaky, or as soon as it fails. (Of course, if 2 disks go at the same time, you're hosed, but that's the case for RAID1 also...) -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ron Johnson, Jr. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson | | | | Spit in one hand, and wish for peace in the other. | | Guess which is more effective... | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
