Gilles Schipper wrote:
> At 09:02 PM 2006-03-27, Denys Beauchemin wrote:
>
>> I bet you meant to say "stripe" and not "strip."    :-)
>>
>> However, to my humble mind, using RAID 0 is tantamount to cutting the
>> disk
>> reliability in half or more.  If either one of those drives blows,
>> you lose
>> everything.  So, not only do you not gain anything from a disaster
>> recovery
>> POV, you actually send a golden invitation to said disaster to come
>> visit.
>>
>> RAID 1 or RAID 5 is a much better solution.  With SATA drives, there are
>> nice devices to handle this for you.
>
> However, RAID 1 or 5 only protects you from a physical malfunction. 
RAID 0/1 or 10.  RAID5 is OK for "archival" storage that is largely
readonly, but effectively limits your I/O threading (only one "plaintext
copy" of the actual image for read, additional I/Os for write). 
Probably not that relevant for a desktop, depending on your application
mix, but certainly relevant for servers. 


Jeff

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *