On Tuesday 11 January 2005 19:47, Derek Piper wrote: > My question is this, is it possible (and even a good idea) to use all > 4 hard drives as members of a 4 x 60GB RAID5 array by leaving 20GB of > the 80GB drive as a non-raided partition? I'll be using a Promise > Ultra TX2/100 controller. That's perfectly okay. > i.e. RAID5 = 180GB usable size,wherease RAID6 = 120GB .. am I correct > in my thinking? Yes. > I know many of you use far larger hard drives, I'm just trying to use > the components I already had spare from a number of machines and > reorganize to a RAID-backed fileserver. My first raid was a raid-0 from two 4.5 GB scsi disks... My first raid at home was on 4x40GB drives, raid5. > The machine is a dual pentium-pro 200 (320MB RAM) .. would that be a > dumb idea to use RAID5 on it because of the parity calculations > needed? That raid-5 array above ran on a K6-300... may not be fast but you can almost be sure that a 100Mbit ethernet is still slower... > Further to that, would it be a smarter idea to use RAID1 on all 4 of > some small partition(s) at the start of the disks to house > boot/root/usr partitions, and only RAID5 on a larger 'data' area of > the drive that is more likely to be read than written to? YES ! If only because it is very hard to boot from raid-5. But you could use that spare 20GB for the OS, couldn't you ? Unless you want that redundant too. Maarten - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
