When RAI5 is not enough

As many as I can get on the RAID card. :P

In my case I have 6 on my 3ware card. I probably wouldn't do more than 8 myself.
 
New iSeries (AS/400) machines can do anywhere from 3 to 18 drives in a single RAID5 set. Older machines, like the ones I manage, max at 10 drives/set.
 
That sounds like it would be terribly slow at writes... 2 sets of parity information instead of a single set... knowing all the read/writes that are normally done with raid5 in order to calculate and store parity info this would be bad. Well... I'm guessing that it's actually the same parity information but it's been "sliden over" 1 drive in the array to allow for multiple failures. So you would only have to do the calculation once and the wirtes of the parity information twice.
 
I think howell's initial point is a very good question. The more drives you add to the RAID 5 array, the greater chance more than one drive may fail at the same time. I would chose 7 as my safe number.
 
blakerwry said:
as for a safe number.. i'd say 5 without a hot spare.. with a hot spare i see no problem for 10. If you need more redundancy get RAID 10 or 50 with spares.

The article talks about their solution being comfortable up to 56 drives and able to take two lost drives with no data loss.
 
Back
Top