> I don't know what your requirements / levels of paranoia are, but > RAID 5 is > probably better than RAID 6 until you are up to 6 or 7 drives; the > chance of a > double failure in a 5 (or less) drive array is minuscule. > . I currently have 3 TB of data with another 1TB on its way fairly soon, so 4 drives will become 5 quite soon. Also, I have read that a common rating of drive failure is an unrecoverable read rate of 1 bit in 10^14 - that is 1 bit in every 10TB. While doing a rebuild across 4 or 5 drives that would mean it is likely to hit an unrecoverable read. With RAID 5 (no redundancy during rebuild due to failed drive) that would be game over. Is this correct?
Tim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/706fc98e51cb5ceddd4e32ea1bc05cc3.squir...@192.168.1.100
