Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14

[Michael Loftis]

--On January 17, 2006 9:10:56 PM -0500 Phillip Susi <psusi@xxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> I understood you to be saying that a raid-5 was less reliable than a
> single disk, which it is not.  Maybe I did not read correctly.  Yes, a 3
> + n disk raid-5 has a higher chance of failure than a 3 disk raid-5, but
> only slightly so, and in any case, a 3 disk raid-5 is FAR more reliable
> than a single drive, and only slightly less reliable than a two disk
> raid-1 ( though you get 3x the space for only 50% higher cost, so 6x
> cheaper cost per byte of storage ).


Yup we're on the same page, we just didn't think we were.  It happens :) 
R-5 (in theory) could be less reliable than a mirror or possibly a single 
drive, but it'd take a pretty obscene number of drives with excessively 
large strip size.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/