Andrew McNabb wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:10:06PM -0600, Kenneth Burgener wrote: >> If I understood RAID 0+1, all it is is a mirrored stripped set. That >> would mean I would still be loosing 50% of my disk capacity. RAID 5 >> only has a 30% lose of disk capacity. Even better is RAID 0, with 0% >> loss of disk capacity. > > Better? Meaning that with every disk you add you increase the risk of > complete failure. How's that better?
Yes, better, as in if you read my original email, disk capacity, not redundancy, was my number 1 concern. >> I am not worried too much about redundancy, but I would like to at >> least have the ability to save some files if one disk begins to slowly >> die. > > Wait. You don't want RAID at all! What you're talking about is > _backups_. Backups are a completely separate issue from RAID. Don't > confuse them. With 1TB, a backup is not economically feasible, and I accept this. What I am asking is if one disk in a RAID 0 begins to die, if I could rebuild that one disk somehow, and just accept the loss of what data was on that disk, without having to move EVERYTHING off the array, and then rebuilding the array. My assumption is RAID 5 has this ability. Kenneth /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
