* Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> [081210 07:31]:
> Why not? I know it's not performing as good as RAID-10, but it does not
> waste 50% diskspace. RAID-6 is no option, because the performance is
> even worse. And, on another system with RAID-5 + spare and SAS drives,
> the same controller is working very well.
Like Scott said, it's all about trade-offs.
With raid5, you get abysmal write performance, "make me not sleep at
night" inconsistent parity issues, and a degraded mode that will a
nightmare ...
... and as a trade-off you save a little money, and get good "read only"
performance ...
... as long as you don't ever have a disk or system crash ...
... or can afford to rebuild if you do ...
... etc ...
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
