> > Given the rebuild time for a 1To disk, I'd be wary of running RAID5 > > - if > > you have the space, adding another disk and going to RAID6 will be > > much > > safer. > > As I see it, 3 disks is about the only configuration where RAID5 still > does make sense. > > 4 disks is a tricky spot, RAID5 already feels a bit too dangerous, but > RAID6 is still not space-efficient enough. Given the fact that all data demands grow, the space-efficiency part is temporary, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Helped a friend to setup a RAID-5 and after her initial drive failure occured, gave her a tip on getting a new one in addition to the RMAed one. 4 drives in RAID-6 now, half a year after the initial failure, rock solid. If she gets a double drive failure, well, the chances are good her data survives it. So yes, use RAID-6 if you can. Perhaps even with a spare if you've got another drive and you don't need the extra space. Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 98013356 roy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ GPG Public key: http://karlsbakk.net/roysigurdkarlsbakk.pubkey.txt -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med xenotyp etymologi. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. -- 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
