Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 22:04:58 -0500 From: Bob Greene <rgreene@tclme.org> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: "Andrew C. Hornback" <hornback@wireco.net>, Steve Blanzy <sblanzy@aperion.com>, FreeBSD Questions <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Raid Message-ID: <3AF4BF5A.A03D7278@tclme.org> References: <000a01c0d57f$2158bb40$0400a8c0@192.168.0.1> <000701c0d581$3dd2da60$0e00000a@tomcat> <20010506101618.B39554@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > > No, RAID-1 gives you the best performance of any RAID setup. The > reason why you need at least 3 disks for RAID-5 is because it is > slower, and though it would theoretically work with only two disks, > it has no advantages over RAID-1 in this configuration. > Huh? This paragraph makes no sense. RAID 0 = striped set RAID 1 = mirrored set RAID 5 = striped set with parity RAID 1 gives maximum redundancy, at the cost of two writes. The third disk in RAID 5 is not a consequence of performance, it's a requirement for redundancy. RAID 5 with only 2 disks is a failure condition of a 3 disk array. At that point it's effectively just a striped set. -- Bob Greene rgreene@TclMe.org Pull my finger for my public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AF4BF5A.A03D7278>