Article View: comp.arch.storage
Article #460Re: RAID 1 or 5 ?
From: RAIDER
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00
36 lines
2317 bytes
2317 bytes
Dear Jim, You work for a company that sells RAIDs. You SPAM all the newsgroups with advertisements about your company. However, looking at your reply I'd be very wary of buying anything from such a "raidexpert". Jim, let it be known that a hot spare drive in a RAID 5 setup does NOTHING to protect from a failure of more than one drive at a time. What it does do, however, it minimizes MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) because most raid controllers will automatically initiate a rebuild of a failed drive onto a hot spare. Should another disk fail while the rebuild is still in progress - the RAID set and all the data on it will be lost. Regards, RAIDER Jim Pappe wrote: > > with Raid 5 plus hot spare - 2 drive can fail .. > www.raidexpert.com > > Mark Landin <m555@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:37e660eb.12904299@news.earthlink.net... > > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:54:19 +0100, "Steven Perez" > > <steve@uninet.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >Kenneth: > > > > > >Go with RAID 1/0 Stripe, and mirror. This will give the very best > > >performance, and availability, although it will give the least amount of > > >storage. > > > > How is RAID 0/1 more "available" than RAID 5? > > > >
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<37EB92A6.8579E99A@ultrafast.net.no.sp.am>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<7nl85m$3nn$1@newton.pacific.net.sg> <37E1425E.9F4D1F3B@t-online.de> <937569107.3977.0.nnrp-11.9e98b72c@news.demon.co.uk> <37e660eb.12904299@news.earthlink.net> <7sehd5$80a@journal.concentric.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10e1c8,813a29bed80cb2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10e1c8,public X-Google-Thread: f4d7c,813a29bed80cb2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4d7c,public X-Google-Thread: 1144af,813a29bed80cb2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1144af,public From: RAIDER <RAIDER@ultrafast.net.no.sp.am> Subject: Re: RAID 1 or 5 ? Date: 1999/09/24 Message-ID: <37EB92A6.8579E99A@ultrafast.net.no.sp.am> X-Deja-AN: 529076371 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7nl85m$3nn$1@newton.pacific.net.sg> <37E1425E.9F4D1F3B@t-online.de> <937569107.3977.0.nnrp-11.9e98b72c@news.demon.co.uk> <37e660eb.12904299@news.earthlink.net> <7sehd5$80a@journal.concentric.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@stargate.net X-Trace: news.sgi.net 938185285 204.52.239.42 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:01:25 EDT) Organization: No Organization (Completely Independent) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:01:25 EDT Newsgroups: comp.arch.storage,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,fido.ger.storage