Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:01:29 -0700 | From | Michael Loftis <> | Subject | Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14 |
| |
--On January 17, 2006 9:10:56 PM -0500 Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> I understood you to be saying that a raid-5 was less reliable than a > single disk, which it is not. Maybe I did not read correctly. Yes, a 3 > + n disk raid-5 has a higher chance of failure than a 3 disk raid-5, but > only slightly so, and in any case, a 3 disk raid-5 is FAR more reliable > than a single drive, and only slightly less reliable than a two disk > raid-1 ( though you get 3x the space for only 50% higher cost, so 6x > cheaper cost per byte of storage ).
Yup we're on the same page, we just didn't think we were. It happens :) R-5 (in theory) could be less reliable than a mirror or possibly a single drive, but it'd take a pretty obscene number of drives with excessively large strip size. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |