![]() | Register | FAQ | Members | Social Groups | User Map | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Hardware
Hardware forum sponsored by |
| | | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search Thread | Language |
| | #16 |
![]() Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Norfolk
Posts: 525
Thanks: 19
Thanked 37 Times in 33 Posts
Blog Entries: 3 Rep Power: 16 | Faster yes, more redundant no. Both RAID-5 and RAID-1 offer 1 disk redundancy. Also RAID-10 will have a lower capacity than on RAID-5. If 2 disks go you are screwed. RAID-6 gives 2 disk redundancy as does RAID-50, which should be slightly faster than RAID-6. The redundancy is better on RAID-6 than RAID-5. Hot spares are a very good idea! I have a 12-disk SAN here, 10xRAID-50 + 2xHot Spares = 4 disks can fail before I have to totally panic! |
| |
| | #17 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Server Room cutting through a forest of Cat5e
Posts: 1,024
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Rep Power: 8 | yes RAID10 gives less capacity, but then RAID5 gives less than RAID0 Why would you ever allow 2 disk to get screwed? Only idiots would not notice a failed HDD and there is a lower chance of both of the same section of the stripe failing. If 2 disks fail irrepairably in RAID5 then you are done. as we were tlaking about <6HDDs then RAID 6 is a bit useless. |
| |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| No raid on server | nicholab | Hardware | 8 | 07-05-2008 03:59 PM |
| RAID on dell server | Jackd | Hardware | 6 | 15-04-2008 09:49 PM |
| RAID 5 Configuration On Server 2003 | AngryITGuy | Windows | 7 | 17-01-2008 10:21 PM |
| Best raid set up for Exchange server | Kyle | Windows | 11 | 07-01-2008 03:50 PM |
| Opinions of Raid set up for new server. | tosca925 | Windows | 10 | 31-01-2007 11:15 PM |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search Thread |
|
|





