[CentOS] Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
William Warren
hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.comSat May 24 12:47:16 UTC 2008
- Previous message: [CentOS] Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Next message: [CentOS] Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I'm not a fan of RAID 5 at all since it can only tolerate one failure at all. Go with raid 10 or something like that which is able to handle more than one failure. Intermittent, uncorrectable sector failures during rebuilds are becoming an increasing problem with today's drives. Rudi Ahlers wrote: > Scott Silva wrote: >> on 5-22-2008 9:58 PM Bahadir Kiziltan spake the following: >>> You need at least 6 drives for RAID5. I don't know if Perc 4e/Di >>> allows configuring the RAID5. >>> >> Where did you get this bit of information? You can create a raid 5 >> with 3 or more disks. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > 3 drives is not really recommended, since if 1 dies, you'll probably > loose the whole set. Rather use min 4 drives, where 1 drive is a hot spare) > -- Registered Microsoft Partner My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17
- Previous message: [CentOS] Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Next message: [CentOS] Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list