Re: Soft raid 10

unit3 writes:
> 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,

I want to see the math that says you only need one more disk for a
RAID 10 to match the storage of a 5-disk or 9-disk RAID 5 set ;)
(unless you mean buing a single 200GB spindle to replace an aging
140GB 9-disk RAID 5 set :) )

> and for RAID 5 you'll likely need a RAID
> controller that costs a lot more than that one (or even 3) disk(s). ;)

Don't forget to buy two RAID controllers (and test them both!) so you
have a spare handy in case the first one dies :) (I've yet to meet a
hardware-based RAID array or card that I really trust... )

Later...

Greg Oster
Received on Fri Jan 26 17:52:05 2007