| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:00:11 -0400, Benoit St-Pierre wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I'm in the planning stages of setting up a file server and am |
| 6 |
> > considering using RAID. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > My concern is that my drive sizes are mixed. I have two 500GB SATA |
| 9 |
> > drives, a 320GB IDE and a 250GB IDE. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I would like to set these up so that the maximum amount of disk space is |
| 12 |
> > usable, but still be able to recover from any one drive failing. I would |
| 13 |
> > also like to be able to add drives of any size as easily as possible. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Create one 500GB RAID1 array with the SATA drives, then create a 250GB |
| 16 |
> array using the IDE drives. Only 80GB lost, which you could partition out |
| 17 |
> and use separately if you really need to. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> You want something you can easily recover from in the event of a disk |
| 20 |
> failure, so keep it simple. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> -- |
| 24 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Loose bits sink chips. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This is a _much_ larger loss. With RAID5 I can use 2/3 of my storage space. |
| 30 |
RAID1 I can only use half. |
Archives