Re: RAID 5 vs duplexing

Article View: comp.os.netware.misc

Article #397

Back to comp.os.netware.misc Previous Next

#397

From: Tay Systems Research
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 00:00

17 lines
1530 bytes

Peter Barker (pbarker@dpie.gov.au) wrote:

: 'Cost' penalty with RAID is that to add extra drive capacity, volumes 
: will need to be re-created.  OTOH, I've had it put to me that duplexing 
: has inherent risks because if there is a corruption, the corruption can 
: be duplexed, giving no protection.

We "sort of" had that happen to one of our sites two weeks ago, ona
ProSignia that had a duplexed subsystem, which consists of the integrated
Compaq adapter and an Adaptec EISA adapter with two Micropolis 3 GB
drives.  

One of the drives failed, and the other continued to function. When it
came time to replace the drive, during the reinstallation, something went
wrong somewhere in NetWare's resynchronization and it caused the "good"
drive to get corrupted.  Result?  A day's worth of data was lost. :-(

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4of367$rfp@clarknet.clark.net>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References: <31938d64.16703900@news.execpc.com> <4o22hp$5pr@clarknet.clark.net> <31A95E52.4063@dpie.gov.au>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fe659,6b2e5f577816a3a4
X-Google-Attributes: gidfe659,public
X-Google-Thread: f8bf7,6b2e5f577816a3a4
X-Google-Attributes: gidf8bf7,public
From: tsr@clark.net (Tay Systems Research)
Subject: Re: RAID 5 vs duplexing
Date: 1996/05/28
Message-ID: <4of367$rfp@clarknet.clark.net>
X-Deja-AN: 157157840
references: <31938d64.16703900@news.execpc.com> <4o22hp$5pr@clarknet.clark.net> <31A95E52.4063@dpie.gov.au>
followup-to: comp.os.netware.misc,bit.listserv.novell
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: Tay Systems Research, Fairfax, VA, USA
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.os.netware.misc,bit.listserv.novell

Reply to Parent Message