I'm glad to hear someone else stand up against this. I've been trying to decide whether to step forward. Now I will:
Down with Raid 5 (or 3 or 4). Raid 10 is the way to go. 5 is just not worth it. It performs worse, and I have personally experienced near disastrous failures twice while running it. On Thu, October 6, 2011 1:27 pm, Nicholas Leippe wrote: > I"m surprised to hear so many RAID5 responses. > > I used to be a fan of RAID5, believing the tradeoffs it proposes were > reasonable. But after witnessing many near disasters (requiring down > time to recover), I'm now a fan of: > http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html > > RAID5 is just not worth the hassle, lower performance, and much higher risk. > > Disk is cheap these days, RAID1 or RAID10 FTW IMO. > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > -- Matthew Walker HAM Call Sign: N7TOX Kydance Hosting & Consulting, Inc. - http://www.kydance.net/ PHP, Perl, and Web Development - Linux Server Administration /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
