Raid 5 (was: Mounting of Linux volumes)

Ross Werner ross at agilestudios.com
Thu Dec 1 18:08:20 MST 2005


On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Chris Carey wrote:
> Im no expert on the performance on these but as far as space:
>
> RAID 1 - 2x40GB drives = 40GB
> RAID 5 - 3x40GB drives = 80GB
>
> You get more bang for your buck with RAID 5.

Hm. I feel comfortable running RAID 1 in software, but I feel *very* 
uncomfortable running RAID 5 in software ... so by the time you've plopped 
down money for a hardware controller, it doesn't seem like much of a 
difference in "bang for your buck" terms.

Anyway, it would be more like:

RAID 1:  4x40GB drives = 80 GB
RAID 5:  4x40GB drives = 120 GB

which isn't quite as big a difference.

Maybe we should just have a quick poll of those who use RAID ...

1) Which RAID level do you use, and in hardware or software?

2) Why do you use RAID?
   a) In case a drive fails
   b) Performance benefits
   c) Mistaken idea that RAID is the same as doing backups
   d) Other?

3) If you use RAID 5, what's the biggest reason you'd use it over RAID 1?

 	~ Ross



More information about the PLUG mailing list