| 1 |
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before |
| 5 |
> > > removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the drives were |
| 6 |
> > > removed. And the deterioration in performance while each disk was |
| 7 |
> > > removed in turn might take more time than its worth. Of course RAID 1 |
| 8 |
> > > wouldn't suffer from this (with >2 disks)... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Raid 6. Two disks can go down. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> not that I know enough about RAID to comment on this page, but you might |
| 13 |
> find it interesting: |
| 14 |
> http://www.baarf.com/ |
| 15 |
> specifically: |
| 16 |
> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
to give you an example, why raid 1 is not a good choice (and raid 10 too). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You have two disks configured as mirror. They report different blocks. Which one |
| 21 |
is the correct one? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And suddenly your system has to guess and you are very out of luck. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Another reason, the author of that text stresses that you have to do more |
| 26 |
writes. Newsflash: with Raid1 every single block has to be written twice. So if |
| 27 |
you use additional writes against Raid5, Raid1 is instantly disqualified. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
You shouldn't listen to people with an agenda. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This is almost as bad as the site that claimed that SATA is much worse than |
| 33 |
PATA in every single aspect ... |
Archives