Article View: comp.arch.storage
Article #436Re: RAID 1 or 5 ?
From: highend
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00
51 lines
2993 bytes
2993 bytes
In article
<EF4B31908F2A7BAC.E7C81737A020640C.DF7A420979E4C82E@lp.airnews.net>,
malc@cwix.com says...
>
>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:01:25 +0200, Ren� K�hnen Wiesemes
><koehnen.pad@sni.de> caused to appear as if it was written:
>
>>none of your suggested solutions will work
>>for 2 simultaneously HD failures:
>
>True.
>
>>RAID 1 (stripping) gives none fault tolerance at all.
>>If you mirrored two RAID 1 groups, only one part
>>can be out of order without data loss.
>
>You're confusing RAID0, which is striping, with RAID1, which is mirroring.
>
>With the suggested scheme, drive 0 would be mirrored with drive 2, drive 1
>with drive 3, then stripe the two pairs together. You can lose the *right*
>two drives (e.g. 0 and 1 or 3, 1 and 0 or 2, etc). but not the wrong pair
>(i.e. 0 and 2, 1 and 3)
>
>>> If I am interested in having storage fault tolerant up to
>>> 2 x HD failure, which option will be good ?
>>>
>>> Option #1 RAID 1 with 4 HDs, i.e. 2 pairs
>>> Option #2 RAID 5 with 4 HDs, i.e. 3 in group, 1 standby
>
true
RAID 5 would only support the loss of one drive at a time
and i can't think of anything that would support the loss of "any"
2 drives at once
* a warm global spare can be set to start backing up immediately OR
to wait until the production shift is over & then rebuild
(sometimes "degraded" state is all you can handle)
_____ . .
' \\ . . |>>
O// . . |
\_\ . . |
| | . mailto:highend@srmc.com . . . |
/ | . (800)324-6711 / (800)720-7618 fax . . . |
/ .| http://sweb.srmc.com/andys/index.html . . |
/ | http://kalypso.cybercom.net/scsiper/andys.html ...o |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new SCSI/FC-AL peripherals
from: IBM, Seagate, Quantum, Adaptec, Sony, Yamaha, ATTO, JNI, ect
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<7nsoie$5g1$2@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<7nl85m$3nn$1@newton.pacific.net.sg> <37A02675.23233EB8@sni.de> <EF4B31908F2A7BAC.E7C81737A020640C.DF7A420979E4C82E@lp.airnews.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 10e1c8,813a29bed80cb2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10e1c8,public X-Google-Thread: 1144af,813a29bed80cb2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1144af,public X-Google-Thread: f4d7c,813a29bed80cb2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4d7c,public From: highend@srmc.com (highend) Subject: Re: RAID 1 or 5 ? Date: 1999/07/30 Message-ID: <7nsoie$5g1$2@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net> X-Deja-AN: 507052538 References: <7nl85m$3nn$1@newton.pacific.net.sg> <37A02675.23233EB8@sni.de> <EF4B31908F2A7BAC.E7C81737A020640C.DF7A420979E4C82E@lp.airnews.net> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-ELN-Date: 30 Jul 1999 17:49:02 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Fri Jul 30 10:55:15 1999 Organization: SPW Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.arch.storage,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,fido.ger.storage