* Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@xxxxxxxx> [081210 07:31]: > Why not? I know it's not performing as good as RAID-10, but it does not > waste 50% diskspace. RAID-6 is no option, because the performance is > even worse. And, on another system with RAID-5 + spare and SAS drives, > the same controller is working very well. Like Scott said, it's all about trade-offs. With raid5, you get abysmal write performance, "make me not sleep at night" inconsistent parity issues, and a degraded mode that will a nightmare ... ... and as a trade-off you save a little money, and get good "read only" performance ... ... as long as you don't ever have a disk or system crash ... ... or can afford to rebuild if you do ... ... etc ... -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@xxxxxxxxxxx command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
