Richard Freeman, mused, then expounded: > Duncan wrote: >> I'd blame that on your choice of RAID (and ultimately on the defective >> hardware, but it wouldn't have been as bad on RAID-1 or RAID-6), more than >> on what was running on top of it. > > Agree - RAID-6 would have helped in this particular circumstance (assuming > I didn't lose more than one drive). The non-server hardware still was a > big issue. I'm not sure I'd ever go with RAID-6 for personal use - that is > a lot of money in non-useful drives. >
FWIW - Raid 1 is more reliable than any other raid configuration as long as it can provide the needed storage and bandwidth. Raid 5, 6, 10 all require enterprise class drives. Otherwise the failure rates and the required backups mean a lot more administrative overhead - including stocking spares. Bob -
