On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:32:44 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: >> Would this work? Would it be better than RAID 15? We're looking for a >> very high redundancy system. > > You only get the size of two drives with that! I think you would get the > same reliability and better performance with four RAID-1 mirror arrays > and RAID-5 over that. You still have to lose four drives to lose data, > but you get the size of three instead of two. But in his case, the loss of any four disks is not a problem. Personally, in this case I'd build a simple RAID6 with two spares. You can lose four disks (just not at the same time :-P ) and you still have four disks' capacity. Of course, if you're worried about controller failure, a RAID1 built from two RAID6 (one on each controller) is your only high-reliability option. -- -- 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
