View Single Post
Old Mar 1, 2010, 08:59 AM   #16
DanTheBanjoman
Seņor Moderator
 
DanTheBanjoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Utrecht, Utrecht, The kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 8,498 (2.58/day)
Thanks: 41
Thanked 1,453 Times in 1,077 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to DanTheBanjoman Send a message via MSN to DanTheBanjoman

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectorC View Post
Fair enough, but I don't see how RAID1 is more fault tolerant. Both RAID1 and RAID5 can function with a missing drive, both will need to be rebuilt if a drive goes bad. RAID1 appears to be more expensive per GB and not deliver the striping performance of RAID5... that is all my argument is.
RAID 1 is not slower than RAID 5, the only reason why RAID 5 _can_ give higher speeds is due to the higher number of disks. Though with every disk added the reliability goes down. Apart from RAID 1 being more expensive per GB your arguments are incorrect.
DanTheBanjoman is offline  
Reply With Quote