stimits at attbi.com
Fri Oct 11 15:33:39 MDT 2002
Peter Hutnick wrote:
> D. Stimits said:
>>There is no technical reason to stop you, it'll work fine, but having
>>slightly different specs can result in far less optimum throughput than
>>with matched disks.
> This is 100% correct.
>>But for raid 5, those in series can be matched, and
>>the one doing checksum would be nice as the 15krpm disk (till you lose a
> This is nonsense. RAID 5 does not use an independent "checksum" (parity)
> disk. It alternates, like:
Yes, I had been thinking of placing a pair of raid 0's in parallel,
using raid 1. But this is raid 1,0 (10), not raid 5, I spoke too soon,
since the two sets in raid 1 require matching sizes. Looks like he has
the ability to build the raid, but it will not be at its most efficient.
D. Stimits, stimits AT attbi.com
> Disk1 Disk2 Disk3
> data data parity
> parity data data
> data parity data
> .. . .
>>You could use the 10k for separate swap, plus other things,
>>like /tmp/, and gain other benefits. Raid 5 of course is not for
>>performance reasons anyway, it is for the case of disk failure, so you
>>will probably be reasonably happy with it.
> This all makes sense, and is good advice if you use RAID-/4/, not 5. See
> Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug
More information about the LUG