From: Joseph Spenner <joseph85750@xxxxxxxxx>
> A RAID5 with a hot spare isn't really the same as a RAID6. For those not
> familiar with this, a RAID5 in degraded mode (after it lost a disk) will suffer
> a performance hit, as well as while it rebuilds from a hot spare. A RAID6 after
> losing a disk will not suffer. So, depending on your need for performance,
> you'll need to decide.
> As far as having a spare disk on a RAID6, I'd say it's not necessary.
> As long as you have some mechanism in place to inform you if/when a disk fails,
> you'll not suffer any performance hit.
Also, if you lose a disk, the RAID6 can lose a second disk anytime without problem.
The RAID5 cannot until the hot spare has fully replaced the dead disk (which can take a while).
And, I believe RAID6 algorithm might be (a little) more demanding/slow than RAID5.
Check also RAID50 and 60 if your controller permits it...
JD
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
