Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1079 mails)

[Lew Wolfgang <wolfgang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/03/2012 05:20 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>     I disagree.
>     1) RAID is no substitute for regular backups.
>     2) RAID 6 even in hardware created a noticeable penalty, while
> RAID5 gets close to RAID0 speeds on READS and most WRITES.

True, but a good RAID can reduce the number of times you
have to go to the tapes.

I've heard that RAID-6 is slower than RAID-5, but I've never
been able to measure the difference myself.  I think that RAID-5
can lead one into a false sense of security.  Once you have a
disk failure you've used up all your redundancy.  Now, when
you replace the defective disk you are susceptible during
the intense rebuild process to a second disk failure.  RAID-6
gives redundancy for the all important rebuild.

I think that RAID-6 is the choice if bandwidth and capacity
allows.  Regarding bandwidth, RAID-60 is great!  I measured
a write rate of 1.3-GB/sec on a 22 disk RAID-60 array recent.y.
RAID-60 is a stripe of two or more RAID-6 arrays.

Regards,
Lew

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx