5651
General Software Discussion / Re: Drive Extender replacement due out in 2012. It's called Storage Spaces.
« Last post by 40hz on July 18, 2012, 09:27 PM »The math gets a little less obvious with something like RAID-5 since there isn't a designated parity drive. The parity data gets distributed among all the drives. But for RAID-5 you'll always need one additional drive to do an array.
Minimum number is three drives. Your data space is the capacity of all the drives in the array minus the capacity of one drive in the array. (Note: All the drives in a pure RAID-5 array must have identical capacity.)
Assuming 1TB drives, a three drive array would have a 2TB data space (i.e. 3TB-1TB). So 33% of the total capacity is 'lost' to parity. But a five drive array would have a 4TB data space (i.e 5TB-1TB) with only 20% total capacity lost to parity. And that percentage decreases with each drive added.
So as you can see, RAID-5 is least economical with only three drives - but it becomes increasingly economic with each drive added after that - up to the capacity of the RAID controller.
The tradeoff is that a standard RAID-5 array can only tolerate one drive failing at a time without experiencing data loss. As skwire pointed out earlier, the general rule is you can have as many drives simultaneously fail as you have parity drives. And in the case of RAID-5, you basically only have one "drive" for parity even though it isn't a specific drive.
In practice, it's a little more complicated than that. But not much.
Minimum number is three drives. Your data space is the capacity of all the drives in the array minus the capacity of one drive in the array. (Note: All the drives in a pure RAID-5 array must have identical capacity.)
Assuming 1TB drives, a three drive array would have a 2TB data space (i.e. 3TB-1TB). So 33% of the total capacity is 'lost' to parity. But a five drive array would have a 4TB data space (i.e 5TB-1TB) with only 20% total capacity lost to parity. And that percentage decreases with each drive added.
So as you can see, RAID-5 is least economical with only three drives - but it becomes increasingly economic with each drive added after that - up to the capacity of the RAID controller.
The tradeoff is that a standard RAID-5 array can only tolerate one drive failing at a time without experiencing data loss. As skwire pointed out earlier, the general rule is you can have as many drives simultaneously fail as you have parity drives. And in the case of RAID-5, you basically only have one "drive" for parity even though it isn't a specific drive.
In practice, it's a little more complicated than that. But not much.


Recent Posts
But I don't think you're going to find many Linux nuts in 




-thank you for making your post a perfect start of my day, 40hz (
