On 12/1/05, Ross Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, James Clawson wrote: > > > I will access the volume as root as you suggested. As for the second disk, > > it was RAID 5, and your response was pretty much what I suspected. Oh, > > well. > > Since we're on the subject of RAID, what's the speed difference like > between RAID 1 and RAID 5? Is that pretty much the only benefit of RAID 5? > > RAID 5 seems nearly impossible to recover from anything apart from a > single drive failure--any sort of data corruption, or a power outage, or > pretty much anything unexpected can render your data unsalvageable, > especially if you're using software RAID ... whereas with RAID 1, you > always have the option of just treating the disk like a normal drive.
Im no expert on the performance on these but as far as space: RAID 1 - 2x40GB drives = 40GB RAID 5 - 3x40GB drives = 80GB You get more bang for your buck with RAID 5. As I understand, RAID 1 will read from both drives simultaneusly, making reads quicker. Writes go to both drives so its similar speed to a single drive setup. Reads *and* writes on RAID 5 are quicker. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
