Goodsounds;352977 Wrote: > Wouldn't you be better off with just one drive and another drive as a > backup? Cheaper too. For now, you have 4 drives, but in what you > describe, no backup. > > With multiple drives, your risk of a drive failure is greater, isn't > it?
I do have another backup. What RAID5 gets me is more speed (reads are from N-1 drives in the RAID set, as opposed to one big drive) and the ability to consolidate cheaper smaller drives into uniform file storage. Back when I made this, 200s were cheap, 500s were not. Having multiple drives increases your risk of a drive failure at some point, becuase there are multiple drives to potentially fail, but having multiple drives doesn't accelerate individual drive time to failure. Basically, after 4 years, I still have 3 of the original drives, and I lost the 4th well into year 3. I've had single disks fail much earlier, and under less load, so in this instance, I'm not seeing increased failure rate. I guess, think of the failure as inevitable? Sooner or later, hard drives fail. This way, the failure doesn't mean your data is gone, and you don't have to resort to backups. It's doesn't even interrupt normal operation. There's a little geek factor here - it's overkill for most folks. As are the mirrored 10k RPM drives comprising the boot volume in this server. But why not? -- androidtopp My SB3 is the most expensive part of my stereo. So I'm not going to brag about it. And my SBB as well...Is it wrong that my alarm clock is worth more than most of my stereo components? I need to work on that. http://www.last.fm/user/androidtopp ------------------------------------------------------------------------ androidtopp's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=19681 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54110 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
