Thread (8 messages) 8 messages, 4 authors, 2005-06-13

Re: RAID 5 of RAID 5's?

From: Andy Smith <hidden>
Date: 2005-06-13 10:03:39

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:15:39AM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote:
Dan Stromberg a ?crit :
quoted
quoted
quoted
Has anyone constructed a RAID 5 of RAID 5's using mdadm on a linux
system?

Was it reliable?

How large was it?
RAID 10 is IMHO a bit more efficient.

Raid 5 means at least 9 disks:
Usable capacity: 4 Disks
Read speed: Good
Write speed: poor
With a low number of disks, you would indeed get the same or less
capacity with RAID 5 + RAID 5 as compared to RAID 10, but as the
number of disks gets higher, doesn't the capacity of RAID 5 on top
of RAID 5 (we need a name for this, is RAID 55 technically correct?)
get better?

For example, 30 disks, organised as 10 3-disk RAID 5s, have 9*2 or
18 disks of capacity, whereas a RAID 10 of same would be 15 disks.

The write performance seems bad though, and maybe the rebuild time
as well.

Attachments

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help