Re: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



I'm not a fan of RAID 5 at all since it can only tolerate one failure at all. Go with raid 10 or something like that which is able to handle more than one failure. Intermittent, uncorrectable sector failures during rebuilds are becoming an increasing problem with today's drives.

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-22-2008 9:58 PM Bahadir Kiziltan spake the following:
You need at least 6 drives for RAID5. I don't know if Perc 4e/Di
allows configuring the RAID5.

Where did you get this bit of information? You can create a raid 5 with 3 or more disks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
3 drives is not really recommended, since if 1 dies, you'll probably loose the whole set. Rather use min 4 drives, where 1 drive is a hot spare)


--
Registered Microsoft Partner

My "Foundation" verse:
Isa 54:17
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux