[GLLUG] RAID1 and Debian 7.2.0 installer

John Edwards john at cornerstonelinux.co.uk
Mon Oct 14 19:45:28 UTC 2013

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 07:22:42PM +0100, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> On Mon, October 14, 2013 19:00, John Edwards wrote:
>> Agreed. For any valuable data the cost of an extra disk to make
>> RAID6 is usually worth it.
> No.  RAID6, and for that matter, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and combinations
> thereof, don't protect at all against an rm in the wrong place.

Did *anyone* claim that it did?

Surely the first thing everyone learns about RAID is "RAID is not a
backup". It protects against hardware failure and allows a system to
continue to operate. And sometimes along the way there can be
performance improvements, but that is secondary to many people.

> RAID levels that involve parity are highly questionable in any case. 

Any particular questions you are thinking of?

RAID10 (not parity) has better read performance than RAID6 (dual
parity), but two failed disks can take out RAID10 if they happen in
the same scan, whereas RAID6 will carry on running.

> We're not in the 20th century anymore.

Yeah, Linux is so last century. Lets get rid of it.

Off topic: Having said that I'm trying to think of a kernel that
wasn't born in the last century.

|    John Edwards   Email: john at cornerstonelinux.co.uk    |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20131014/1ccee2d0/attachment.pgp>

More information about the GLLUG mailing list