Greg Oster wrote:
> I guess I don't define anything slower than "RAID 10" as "quite slow" :)
> "RAID 10" is "quite fast", and "quite expensive" (as compared to
> RAID 5).
>
I'm not sure where the expensive part comes in, since at most you need
one more disk than RAID 5, and for RAID 5 you'll likely need a RAID
controller that costs a lot more than that one (or even 3) disk(s). ;)
Received on Fri Jan 26 17:22:29 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 26 2007 - 17:22:37 CST