List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Kyle Cordes Date:March 20 1999 4:32am
Subject:RAID levels
View as plain text  
> >  It really is up to the final customer.  I prefer raid 5 over
> mirroring
> >for maximum up time in the commercial products I've seen.
> 
> 
> I have to agree here. 0+1 is a cheaper and faster solution but when it
> comes to stability RAID 5 is the biz. We've had a number of crashes
> (which proved to be a bad channel on our RAID controller in the end) and
> with hot-swap and RAID 5 we never needed to take down the system until
> we had to replace the controller.

RAID 0+1 (striping+mirroring) requite 2N drives for N drives worth of 
data, while RAID 5 requires only N+1 drives for N drives worth of 
fata.

RAID 0+1 is a faster but *more expensive*.  It generally works using 
exactly the same controller and hot-swap support as RAID 5, except 
that you need more drives for the same amount of net storage.  0+1 is 
also more reliable in the sense that more than one drive can fail
(as long as they are not a mirrored pair) without losing data or 
uptime.

Here are sites with RAID level information:

http://www.clariion.com/products/raid_levels.html

http://www.psidisk.com/shortRAID.html


[* kyle@stripped       | For Delphi  |  BDE Alternatives Guide  *]
[* http://www.kylecordes.com | developers: | MIDAS Alternatives Guide *]
Thread
SV: fastCPU vs moreRAMMartin Edelius19 Mar
  • RAID levelsKyle Cordes20 Mar
    • Re: RAID levelsMatthias Pigulla20 Mar
  • Re: PLEASE READ: Porting Windows VC++ MySQL Proggie to Linux\UnixSinisa Milivojevic27 Jun
Re: SV: fastCPU vs moreRAMDerick H Siddoway19 Mar