[clue-tech] RAID no. of disks

[Angelo Bertolli]

Yeah, I've read it all before.  With upwards of probably 2 Petabytes of 
data at this point, we're not going to spend the extra money to have 
completely redundant data.  Everything is a tradeoff.


Jack Parker wrote:
> I try to keep my mouth shut.  Cruise over to comp.databases.informix and
> google for "Raid 5 Art Kagel".
>
> j.
>
> Sane ego te vocavi. Forsitan capedictum tuum desit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: clue-tech-bounces at cluedenver.org
> [mailto:clue-tech-bounces at cluedenver.org]On Behalf Of Angelo Bertolli
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:41 PM
> To: CLUE tech
> Subject: [clue-tech] RAID no. of disks
>
>
> I know that things like RAID 5 need at least 3 disks, and can lose 1
> disk.  The biggest RAID sets I set up are RAID 6 with 12 disks, and
> honestly that's pushing it a bit for fault tolerance.  But it does seem
> to work.
>
> Does anyone on the list know if there is an upper limit to the number of
> disks?  I am sure there must be, as the parity can't possibly be rebuilt
> from just using one extra drive, if you have 1000 data drives, for
> example.  I'm sure there has to be a tradeoff somewhere, like if I have
> 1000 drives, I'm not getting a capacity of 999 drives, maybe more like
> 900 drives.
>
> Angelo
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-tech mailing list
> clue-tech at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-tech mailing list
> clue-tech at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
>