Re: Four Drive RAID-5 on RAIDFrame Considered Harmful...

--/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 02:59:37PM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> Greg Troxel writes:
> > Because of this I've always just bought two big disks and done RAID-1.
>=20
> RAID 1 has the same issue -- Say the machine dies at the point where
> block n is written to component 0 but not to component 1.  If=20
> component 0 dies before block n gets synced between the two, then=20
> when you read block n from component 1, you're going to get the old=20
> data.

It's not exactly the same. IMHO old (in RAID1 case) is better than
random (in RAID5 case).

--=20
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       http://www.wheel.pl
[email protected]                           http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer                         Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!

--/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHDfhvForvXbEpPzQRAqwhAJ9V2osq7JF5VOvUvnQPMz7/dnTEzgCgm0zg
8vwXCs13u6m8w7Co+h+qzj8=
=3fWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4--