Raid and different cache size

I understand your point about economy
For instance an array with 14 drives using 2 for parity
has only swapped 15% capacity for redundancy which seems good
But at the same time it can only handle 15% failure before data loss
which is much too risky for a revenue critical system
(When RAID10 can handle between 25% and 50% failure)
For example an online business which could lose £100,000 per day
in the event of data loss is hardly going to worry about the difference
in cost between RAID6 and RAID10 - it is a no-brainer - RAID10 wins
Similarly for a performance workstation economy is irrelevant
3 raptors versus 4 raptors - difference of £70 - RAID10 wins
As for work: I am using it because it is there and can not support RAID10 - everything else has is RAID1 or RAID10
 
Yes - you are getting through to me

I think when the number of drives in the array gets high
parity raid starts to make sense

Plus for 14 drives
12 data + 2 parity does give more redundancy than
worst case of stripe across 7 mirrors of 2 drives
but with much more capacity available

So I am persuaded :-)

But RAID5 on my desk? no thanks - spend another £70 and get RAID10

And as for that 80MB/s storage "wonder" at work I guess its throughput issues
are more the fault of its CPU than its RAID level
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom