On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 11:36, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2003-03-10T16:39:36Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > > Never heard of putting any more than 2 disks in a mirrorset. > > Mirroring can have a nice boost for read access. I'd imagine that such a > setup would be useful for something like ftp.cdrom.com, where many > simultaneous read requests (but almost no write requests) are being > answered.
I bet RAID0 would be even faster. Yes, yes, fragile... > > Never even thought of it, actually. With more than 2 disks, I'd > > automatically go with RAID5. > > I guess it depends on your needs. Given the money for such a setup, RAID1+0 > (or RAID10, whatever you want to call it) would be faster and possibly more > robust; as long as at least one drive from each stripe survives, the whole > filesystem is still available. They blaze!!! But, given enough (and that means *lots*) cache, RAID5 is just as fast. And you're right, the likelihood that a specific disk will puke is pretty darned low. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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]
