Ken Heard wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
lee wrote:
Now when you have three disks, you can run a raid 5. In case one of the
disks fail, all you need to do is to replace the broken one.
Perhaps I should invest in a third HD, and before I go any further
switch from RAID 1 to 5.
I don't like the sound of *that*. RAID 5 done in software can be
dreadfully slow. Buy two drives and do a RAID 10, or stick with RAID 1.
(If you could get them free, about a dozen or two dozen SAS drives and a
good 3ware hardware RAID card would be my choice, with RAID 6, or 50.
But we are in dreamland now.)
And always use raid when you can. I've seen too many disks fail in too
short time for not to use it.
Yes, I have already had this experience -- why I want to have a RAID array.
Ken
I don't stint on the hard drives, I get them five at a time, and burn
them in some. Then I use a RAID 10, and I have a fifth drive as a
spare. Or, if one of the drives fails the burn-in or fails early, I can
use the spare right away, and usually get a new spare of the same make,
model, size, etc.
RAID 10 is a bit expensive in the initial outlay, unless you buy the
drives at a deep discount or in bulk, (and it is not necessary for Joe
Average, or Aunt Petunia, while for high availability, reliability or
speed, one would go a different route) but RAID 10 is easy to
understand, setup, maintain, and upgrade. It is a compromise. Faster
and more reliable than other software-based options, but not as
satisfactory or reliable as an adequate hardware RAID 5.
The goal is to balance cost, reliability, and human effort with
realistic expectations.
No RAID setup will save you if the place burns to the ground. (So keep
your backups off site.)
MArk Allums
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
