Raid5 (Attn: Art Kagel)

John Miller fedora at n4vu.com
Mon Dec 8 16:11:02 UTC 2003


On Monday, December 08, 2003 10:27, ART KAGEL, BLOOMBERG/ 65E 55TH wrote:
> It has become apparent to me, based on the under informed
> recommendations and assertions being made recently to people requesting
> guidance about how to structure their disk arrays, that I need to post
> my NO RAID5 ranting here as I have in other places.   
<snip>
> To put things into perspective: If a drive costs $1000US (and most are far
> less expensive than that) then switching from a 4 pair RAID10 array to a 5
> drive RAID5 array will save 3 drives or $3000US.  What is the cost of
> overtime, wear and tear on the technicians, DBAs, managers, and customers
> of even a recovery scare?  What is the cost of reduced performance and
> possibly reduced customer satisfaction?  Finally what is the cost of lost
> business if data is unrecoverable?  I maintain that the drives are FAR
> cheaper!  

Thanks, Art -- that's as good an analysis as I've ever read.  

It also makes a compelling business case, but what, in your opinion, is 
optimum for a home installation where the *integrity* of RAID is desired, but 
at minimal cost (keeping in mind that many of us are more than willing to 
trade transactions per second for ultimate integrity).  

Software- or hardware-based RAID, and what configuration?  

Best regards, 
-- 
John Miller
Retired from all that, but still playing...





More information about the users mailing list