Q. regarding RAID5
From: Tommy C. Li (realitymage_at_adelphia.net)
Date: 12/31/03
- Previous message: Robert MacLean: "Re: X problems with nvidia drivers under linux"
- Next in thread: P.T. Breuer: "Re: Q. regarding RAID5"
- Reply: P.T. Breuer: "Re: Q. regarding RAID5"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:53:26 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I've recently discovered what RAID5 is all about, and it looks very
appealing - to have redundancy without sacrificing too much disc space.
As I understand it, with RAID5, when you have N drives, you will have
N-1 drives worth of space (assuming all your drives are of equal
capacity). You will also have full redundancy, so long as only one drive
fails at a time.
So obviously, the more drives you have, the less space you will have to
sacrifice in order to have redundancy. (6 drives of 30GB yields 150GB,
while 3 drives of 60GB yields 120GB.)
So the best thing to do would be to get many smaller drives.
But that doesn't seem right - having more space-efficiency by just
having additional drives...
Is there a trade off to this? Does reconstruction take longer if you
have a higher number of smaller drives?
- --
Tommy C. Li | RealityMage
Registered Linux User # 327563 | http://www.impulsestorm.com
Gentoo Linux 1.4 | Kernel: 2.6.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/8nJl6+j68VDAL5kRAtyFAJ9llpeHIcsmZFL4D7VnewrlHKDD9wCfbNZr
kkIPQOQDeVsUvkwjMaTWN/o=
=89FN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message: Robert MacLean: "Re: X problems with nvidia drivers under linux"
- Next in thread: P.T. Breuer: "Re: Q. regarding RAID5"
- Reply: P.T. Breuer: "Re: Q. regarding RAID5"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
