Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:39:14 -0800 From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@mcmanis.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Stefan Cars <stefan@snowfall.se> Subject: Re: 1 processor vs. 2 Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20040303103714.02d64d90@66.125.189.29> In-Reply-To: <200403031453.49069.danny@ricin.com> References: <BC6A0533.1DC4C%joe@jwebmedia.com> <40452715.5030304@mindcore.net> <20040303140216.U99563@guldivar.globalwire.se> <200403031453.49069.danny@ricin.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:53 AM 3/3/2004, Danny Pansters wrote: >RAID5 on 3 disks? That's useless. Its only mostly useless. You can't mirror (RAID-1) three drives, so if you want some resiliency you can use RAID-5 and give up one disk to parity and get two disks worth of data. You could even do RAID4 on three disks. 'course 4 disks is generally the minimum most people talk about, but its not completely useless. --Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.0.22.2.20040303103714.02d64d90>