Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:43:27 +1030 From: Malcolm Kay <malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> To: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@mcmanis.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Stefan Cars <stefan@snowfall.se> Subject: Re: 1 processor vs. 2 Message-ID: <200403041943.27204.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040303103714.02d64d90@66.125.189.29> References: <BC6A0533.1DC4C%joe@jwebmedia.com> <200403031453.49069.danny@ricin.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20040303103714.02d64d90@66.125.189.29>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:09, Chuck McManis wrote: > 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 can certainly run RAID-1 across 3 disks leading to three copies of da= ta and still a pretty solid system after one goes down. However I'm not sure if = it is valid to call it a mirror system ;-) Malcolm > You could even do RAID4 on three disks. 'course 4 disks is generally th= e > minimum most people talk about, but its not completely useless. > > --Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403041943.27204.malcolm.kay>