raid 4 is also an option - NetApp. however, they tend to be pricey.
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> Steve Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 19 January 2001 at 16:59:33 -0500
> > I've searched the archives extensively, and I've learned quite a lot, but
> > I'd like advice on this question:
> >
> > Assuming RAID 1+0 is not an option (due to the expense), what level of
> > RAID is best for storing /Maildir's on a file server (that will be
> > accessible to the SMTP & POP servers via NFS). Redudancy is the big
> > issue, otherwise I'd go for RAID 1. The suits are pushing for RAID 5
> > because they don't know better - and won't listen.
>
> Um; 0 is striping, 1 is mirroring, right? I don't do this enough to
> be confident of the numbers. So if mirroring is too expensive, the
> only option available for consideration is RAID 5, parity. It has
> less redundancy than mirroring, but good reliability (survives loss of
> one disk).
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
> Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
---------------------------------
Paul Theodoropoulos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Syntactically Subversive Services, Inc.
http://www.anastrophe.net
Downtime Is Not An Option
