Well, I have had only positive expierience with raid5. I have been using
it for several years now. Lost one controller about 2 years ago and a
couple of drives in the past 3 years. No problems to restore the system
in all cases. Using good raid controllers also helps, as they inform you
about
Robin Bowes wrote:
Personally, I have a 6-disk R5 array - 4 + 1 parity + 1 hot spare
I'll be going with RAID6 next time - that can withstand the loss of two
drives.
and what controller might you invest in for this (future) setup?
something relatively cheap that can be installed in old
Peter Nõu wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
Personally, I have a 6-disk R5 array - 4 + 1 parity + 1 hot spare
I'll be going with RAID6 next time - that can withstand the loss of two
drives.
and what controller might you invest in for this (future) setup?
something relatively cheap that can
dean blackketter wrote:
My experience with raid5 was a bad one. I had one drive fail on my
linux server and didn't get notified for a long time. Then when I
went to add another drive and rebuild, another (of the same vintage)
went out.
Now, I'm not 100% sure that it wasn't my fumbly
Jack Coates wrote:
dean blackketter wrote:
My experience with raid5 was a bad one. I had one drive fail on my
linux server and didn't get notified for a long time. Then when I
went to add another drive and rebuild, another (of the same vintage)
went out.
Now, I'm not 100% sure that it
Raid 5 is great. I have 4x250Gb disks of which 750Gb is useable. I can
lose any single disk without data loss. If it fails, I swap the faulty
disk with one of equal or greater capacity and it automatically
rebuilds (in theory). One nice feature as well is that I can continue
to use the system -
jimdibb Wrote:
It is much more reliable than a single disk, but for most purposes you
should still have backups.
[/color]
The age-old question for me is how one realy backs up disk arrays this
large. Currently, I have a very simple setup a 320G drive in the
slimserver. And another
If you are on linux I recommend you take a look at http://rsnapshot.org
(discussed on the 'how do you backup...' thread of a few days ago as
well)
This would be a perfect solution for what you just described, kkitts.
Also, FWIW, I'd recommend your backup drive size = primary drive size.
kkitts Wrote:
The age-old question for me is how one realy backs up disk arrays this
large.
Yep. I was going to ask about that very thing. What, if anything, are
people using to back up a large music library. I have my ripped files
on a RAID5 NAS. Backing up to DVD would be a daunting task.
zano65 Wrote:
Hello, i've heard of Raid 5, if someone is using it i would like to have
an opinion. Are the disks seen as one disk? It would be easier to
browse with the Squeezebox. Is it faster and reliable?
I would like to buy a Pci SATA card and 4 300 G° Hdds in the future.
It has some
Other disks (bigger, slower) is the primary way at the moment, unless you've done it incrementally over time to smaller media (backing up your library to DVD as you rip it will make the ripping take longer but is much less daunting than doing the same thing after ripping the whole thing)
In
jimdibb Wrote:
For R5 vs. R1, R5 is cheaper and the real reliability is only slightly
worse
than mirrors (gets worse with wider Raid groups, but also gets
cheaper). R1
needs back-ups just as much as R5 does.
In the general case I'll agree that R1 needs backups as much as R5. In
the
It's time to pull out the wallet and spring for RAID-10 :-)
--
cjhabs
cjhabs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3760
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22379
I wasn't referring to write corruption but the chance of simultaneous loss of 2 drives. If you have a drive failure in your R1, it still needs to be replaced and rebuilt before the second drive also fails. 2 drive failure is also what you primarily worry about in R5 systems, but the chance of two
Smiley not withstanding,R10 is neither more reliable nor cheaper than R1. Nor more expensive really. Also, the math from my previous post applies for why it's at all more reliable than R5.Just keeping it real. :)
On 3/23/06, cjhabs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's time to pull out the wallet and
Jim Dibb wrote:
I wasn't referring to write corruption but the chance of simultaneous
loss of 2 drives. If you have a drive failure in your R1, it still
needs to be replaced and rebuilt before the second drive also fails.
2 drive failure is also what you primarily worry about in R5 systems,
Jim Dibb wrote:
Smiley not withstanding,
R10 is neither more reliable nor cheaper than R1. Nor more expensive
really. Also, the math from my previous post applies for why it's at
all more reliable than R5.
Actually, it's slightly more reliable. It can withstand the loss of 2
discs (one in
The same applies to the mirror. The surviving drive is under just as much stress during resynching.On 3/23/06, Robin Bowes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Jim Dibb wrote: I wasn't referring to write corruption but the chance of simultaneous
loss of 2 drives.If you have a drive failure in your R1, it
The reliability is only per protected set. Which in a R10 still is only 2 drives. Consider per usable capacity.On 3/23/06, Robin Bowes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Jim Dibb wrote: Smiley not withstanding,
R10 is neither more reliable nor cheaper than R1.Nor more expensive really.Also, the math from
If you are working in a Windows XP environment, you can play around with
software raid 5 by following the recipe here: http://tinyurl.com/lbbh8
This does involve taking a hex editor to a couple of windows system
files, but I've had very good luck with this setup. My software raid 5
array easily
My experience with raid5 was a bad one. I had one drive fail on my
linux server and didn't get notified for a long time. Then when I
went to add another drive and rebuild, another (of the same vintage)
went out.
Now, I'm not 100% sure that it wasn't my fumbly fingers that did
something
21 matches
Mail list logo
