also sprach Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.1627 +0200]: > > 3) RAID 5 is not resilient against multiple failures. We now use RAID 1. > > RAID 1 is also faster, although it sometimes requires more drives. > > In extreme cases we use RAID 1 with three or more drives. > > On Monday 20 August 2007 00:36, martin f krafft wrote: > > RAID 1 is also not resilient to multiple failures. > > Is the loss of N-1 members of an N-way RAID-1 not survivable?
Well, yes. I see what you mean now. You can survive N-1 harddrives failing at once while with RAID5, that better not happen before a spare could take over. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "when faced with a new problem, the wise algorithmist will first attempt to classify it as np-complete. this will avoid many tears and tantrums as algorithm after algorithm fails." -- g. niruta
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
