Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jan 2010 16:57 UTC, submitted by wanker90210
Thread beginning with comment 404953
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What about 5-way RAID?
by Soulbender on Wed 20th Jan 2010 06:35
in reply to "RE[3]: What about 5-way RAID?"
B. If you use a 1:3 mirroring, your RAID10 will survive a 2 drive failure, but will waste a staggering 66% of the total disk space.
Sure, but that means you CAN lose more than one drive. If this is a viable compromise or not depends on your needs and requirements. Storage is (relatively) cheap these days, after all.




Member since:
2005-07-06
Uh, no. That's not how RAID 10 works. Since it's a stripe of mirrors you can lose all but one drive in each mirror set. How many actual drives that translates to depends on how many drives are in each mirror set and how many mirror sets you have. "
A. If you only want to waste 50% of your data, you must use 1:1 mirroring.
A1. As long as your array uses 1:1 mirroring, losing two drives of a certain mirror-set will kill the array.
B. If you use a 1:3 mirroring, your RAID10 will survive a 2 drive failure, but will waste a staggering 66% of the total disk space.
Either way, RAID 6 is far more efficient and/or resilient - let alone a theoretical RAID7.
- Gilboa