Not sure about the details of RAID 5, but as far as I know the array would
be transparent to OS, that is all reading and writing would be done in
hardware. So it shouldn't matter what the file system is, as long as it can
handle the size of the resulting drive, obviously FAT would not be
recommended.
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Spencer Ogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SigLinux"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 10:09 PM
Subject: RE: IDE RAID
> > Perfect. Four is also a good number for RAID because that will
> > allow you to
> > do stripping and mirroring at the same time, meaning that you
> > will have one
> > drive with a size of 56GB which is almost twice as fast, and twice as
> > reliable. Or a four way stripping setup to get 112GB with almost
> > four times
> > the speed, but one of the four drives goes down, all of your data is
gone.
> > With the first setup you are break even on reliability, although
> > two drives
> > would have to go down at the same time to screw you, so I guess
> > it works out
> > better than one drive.
>
> how about parity (raid 5). that's what i was going to use b/c of the
things
> you just pointed out.
>
> another thing. what file system will the collective array appear to have?
> like FAT, FAT32, ext2, etc. and how will defrag utility programs like
> norton or some of the linux ones treat such a setup?
>
> GT
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
