Raid5 (Attn: Art Kagel)
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.
> 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
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?
Retired from all that, but still playing...
More information about the users