TriX wrote:
I like RAID 1+0 also (long the favorite of data base administrators) and in some cases, it will tolerate a double drive failure also (depending on where the two drives fail). The downside is that you only get 50% usable storage of the total capacity you pay for. As an alternative, if you don’t need the extra speed or capacity that RAID 1+0 provides (a single drive is large and fast enough for your needs), you can simply use RAID 1 or simple mirroring.
Regarding RAID 5, there is no redundancy drive - the parity is rotating across all drives such that the parity is always on a different drive from the block of data and as mentioned, you can add another drive to support dual drive failure without data loss so called RAID 6) The advantages of RAID 5 are higher utilization (a 3 drive RAID 5 provides 66%, a 4 drive, 75%, and so on) and the ability to serve different files to multiple users simultaneously, hence the reasons most corporate/enterprise servers are RAID 5. Like any RAID system, you are vulnerable to a second drive failure during a rebuild, which can take a very long time with large drives.
Actually, the best choice for performance with large files and the highest utilization is a RAID 3 (byte striped with a separate parity drive) or RAID 4 (blocked striped with separate parity). RAID 3 is hard to find, but there is at least one consumer grade system that offers RAID 4 and of course, if it fits your budget, there is NetApp, THE enterprise grade NAS company. If you can find a used one at a reasonable price, THAT is a great solution. I bought one used and ran it for 10 years in an un heated, uncooled basement (in addition to its original service) without so much as a drive failure.
I like RAID 1+0 also (long the favorite of data ba... (
show quote)
Okay, thanks for the information. As I have stated with some of my other HH family members.....I have a lot to read and decisions to make here pretty quickly.