RE: General RAID5 question - dangers?

From: William Rice <ricew@operamail.com> > >Thank you for the clarifications. I agree that due to the fact you are >doing >a lot more reads for a write you are somewhat more susceptible to errors. >But the percentage of writes to reads on most systems I have seen is low. >So the number of reads you are adding wouldn't seem that high. Well, the number of reads *and* writes increase. When you read a stripe, you read the whole stripe. >I agree the grumbles about RAID 5 are loud enough to make one think. >Any reason for not pushing RAID 3 as a feasible option over RAID 5? >I guess maybe availability of hardware to do RAID 3 might be a factor. That's probably it. >I am not against pushing RAID 10 by any stretch of the imagination, >but as far as parity going out of whack, RAID 3 would seem an ideal >solution for preventing that from occuring. > >As far as cleaning your house, you pay transportation costs, I will send >you an address to mail tickets and car rental to. Do you have hardwood >floors, tile or carpet? (I would hate to bring the wrong cleaning >supplies). All three! (Not much of any of them, to be sure! :-) >P.S. I suggest RAID 10 whenever given the oppurtunity, but like I said >before >it is because I am a lazy bum who is scared of multiple disk failures. Totally unlike myself. :) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com