raid 5?

RAID1 is for performance, faster writing

RAID5 is for redundancy, say you have 3 36HDs...RAID5 would make them into basically 1 90GB or so partition...if one hard drive fails, you still can work and have all your data, you can replace that hard drive and you will have redudancy again
 
Raid 5 gives you large storage (the total capacity is equal to the total capacity of all of the hard drives minus one hard drive (this is if they are all the same size. if not, they are all treated like hard drives with capacity equal to the smallest hard drive)) while also gives you some protection from hard drive failure. If one fails, the information is still good. If 2 fails though, you are fucked.

Raid 1 is basically taking 2 hard drives and making a mirror. If one fails, it stays up. You can expand that to 100 hard drives. 50 original, 50 copies.

Raid 5 is more cost effective while Raid 1 is the more reliable.

edit: i think I'm wrong on raid 1. Think it's 1 orginal, 99 copies.
 
Last edited:
Raid%20on%20the%20Dukester.jpg


I hope this clears things up.
 
Cringe said:
RAID1 is for performance, faster writing

RAID5 is for redundancy, say you have 3 36HDs...RAID5 would make them into basically 1 90GB or so partition...if one hard drive fails, you still can work and have all your data, you can replace that hard drive and you will have redudancy again
Click to expand...
you have no idea what you're talking about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top