Hmm, in all fairness, the simple statement "RAID-5" is misleading. The
term is somewhat simplistically used to mean striping with parity
whereas it formally does mean without parity unless qualified as RAID
3,5 or whatever. Simple striping would of course provide no redundancy
but I gave the originator and the readers enough intelligence to not be
a stickler for accuracy. I admit that I find such sticklerism boring and
leads to innane chains such as this.
Time for me to go to back to sleep and let the innaninities stickle.
"Daniluk, Cris" wrote:
>
> Unless redundancy is important over striping :)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 1:47 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: RAID 5 and queue restore
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 01:22:08PM -0500, wrote:
> > > Suppose I was running a DPT RAID 5 controller and the mail queue was
> > > stored on this RAID array. What will happen to the inode
> > structure of
> > > the queue if one of the disks fails, I replace it and the controller
> > > rebuilds it?
> >
> > Nothing. You're covered at the inode level.
> >
> > But that doesn't mean the RAID 5 is good to use. Use 1+0 instead.
> >
> > --
> > John White johnjohn
> > at
> > triceratops.com
> > PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
> >
--
Daemeon Reiydelle
Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
