On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 08:47 -0500, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Benjamin Smith
> <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > IMHO, very few people really need RAID. In many (most?) cases, the added
> > complexity of RAID is as likely to cause an increase of failure rate similar
> > to or greater than the reduction of failure rate caused by the resiliancy of
> > hardware. RAID won't protect you if you issue a perfectly legitimate command
> > to delete data that was made in error. I once thought I needed RAID, and since
> > realized the error in my ways, finding that the cases where RAID helped (one!)
> > was vastly outnumbered by the cases where it made no difference (10? 11?) or
> > actually worked against me. (2) Now, I don't bother with RAID even though my
> > needs have grown from one server to 16, instead providing redundancy at the
> > machine level: if a server goes, another picks up the load, in most cases
> > automatically, in near-real-time. I can do this because I host a custom-made
> > application with these objectives carefully designed for.
>
> I'm not sure why you have so many problems with RAID.
+1
> I will never run a production server without RAID. A simple mirror
> (RAID 1) potentially increases up time and doesn't add much complexity.
+1 And a lowly technician can do it while I'm on vacation.
> time. Failing over to another server is always great, but why be one
> server down for a simple drive failure.
Depending on the application failing to another server is also fraught
with issues.
> Not to mention the speed increases from RAID 5 or 10.
Speed increase from RAID 10 yes, not RAID 5.
<http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
