On 10/07/19 00:22, Adam Goryachev wrote: > I'm not sure why I disagree with you Wol... why is RAID10 so much better > than a 3 disk RAID1? Linux MD you can use 3 disk RAID10 with 2 mirrors, > but I don't think that is what you are suggesting, it would bring > capacity up to 3TB but you can only lose one drive (same as the RAID5 > option). Because in my very limited experience, most places have the implicit assumption that raid-1 is two mirrors. When I was playing with raid for writing the wiki, I tripped over that, and had a bunch of problems with three drives. For example, you can't convert a 3-drive raid-1 to any other raid ... > > IMHO, if data resilience is your primary concern, than RAID1 x 3 drives, > or potentially RAID10 x 3 drives with 3 mirrors if there is some > technical implementation / performance difference I'm not aware of with > these two options. The problem with both raids 1 and 5 is that if a drive decides to *corrupt* data, then as far as the raid goes you are up shit creek without a paddle. Your data is toast. So if recovery from data corruption is important you need to go raid 6. Given that the OP says he takes regular backups, I'd probably go 3-drive raid-10 for speed, or maybe 4-drive raid-6 for integrity. But you're probably better putting an integrity-checking filesystem like btrfs on top of raid 10. Cheers, Wol
