Yes, you're absolutely right. Sorry, brain spazz on my end.
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:01 -0500, Jim Dibb wrote: > To make a small correction to what's below, you do not have to read > the same sector from every other drive to write to one drive. You > only have to read the sector you are writing to and the corresponding > parity sector. So, there's still a penalty, but not as large as > what's suggested below. > > On 11/27/05, Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 01:50 -0800, trebejo wrote: > > I'm surprised at how little you guys care for the RAID 5 > idea. > ... > > You should be aware that there is a performance penalty for > using RAID5; > every time you write a sector to disk, you must read the same > sector > from each of the other drives in your array and recompute the > checksums. > For a music library that doesn't change much (i.e., many more > reads than > writes), you won't pay too much of a penalty for using RAID5. > If you > intend to use the headless server for other applications as > well, it may > be worth investigating either RAID 1 or RAID 0+1 instead (RAID > 0 is, I > think, worse than useless, but it looks like you already know > that). > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
