🚀 go-pugleaf

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa7bde53e86577498a268@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <403DDBE5.67A77D68@ozemail.com.au>,
> audiobANTISPAM@ozemail.com.au says...
> > Scott Coutts wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, sure. I dont doubt that it can be faster. But it's also true
that
> > > they can be slower... when all the motherboards started coming out a
> > > while back with built in RAID controllers, people were going out and
> > > setting up their RAID arrays and thinking how much faster it would
be...
> > > but those setups often just dont cut it (: They're OK for backup
> > > purposes I guess.
> >
> > RAID 1 generally offers higher performance than a single drive with
> > twice the risk of failure.
>
> RAID 1 is a mirror - two drives hold EXACTLY the same information. While
> you have twice the chance for a drive to fail, you only have half the
> chance for data loss due to failure of any drive. In the real world that
> means that loosing a single drive does not impact the user.
>
> RAID 0 is a stripe across two disks - this provides twice the chance for
> mechanical failure and twice the chance to loose everything in the event
> of a mechanical failure. Loosing either drive results in the complete
> loss of everything.
>
> RAID 5 is a stripe across 3+ disks with a parity stripe used to rebuild
> the other drives in the event of a failure. In this situation you can
> tipple your chance for a mechanical failure, but you benefit from being
> able to replace the defective drive and rebuild the entire array without
> the loss of data. During the time a drive is lost, you will notice a
> significant performance hit.
>
> Mechanical failure does not always mean data loss - only RAID 0 in the
> example above suffers from data loss.

Really, what happens if you blow two drives in a raid 5 setup ? Dont say it
never happens, it did.