On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 23:47, Adam Martin wrote: > Sorry, ammendment needed... I lost my sentence half way through... > > Although that is a step in the right direction, why not go to raid 5, > whereas data lost from a stripe set without parity (Raid 1) is > unrecoverable, > <NEW> > data from a stripe set with parity can usually be recovered, > </NEW> > > unless of course more than one disk in the array fails. You also need at > least 3 HDD for Raid 5, but an extra HDD is a very minimal cost.
I think you'll find RAID 0 is striping without parity (which makes the 'R' is RAID something of a misnomer), RAID 1 is straight mirroring. Raid 5 is a option if you need a performance increase _and_ redundancy, but Raid 1 has the advantage of simplicity, each drive is actually a mountable drive if another fails. RAID 1 is good for applications where data integrity is important, but without a huge transaction rate. I'd personally _never_ use RAID 0, unless I was actually planning to lose data. A search on google turns up -- http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html which looks like an excellent resource. None of this is a substitute for having off-site backups! Best regards, Richard Waid Network/Software Engineer http://iopen.co.nz
