News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Battle Agaist Any Raid Five initiative (2016) by zeta0134 on Friday July 13, 2018 @04:45AM (#17521416)
I learned that RAID5 has a hidden gotcha in it's implementation: it maintains just one parity drive, no matter how big the array is. This is a bit counter intuitive; you might expect it to instead maintain 1/3 of the available drive space in parity. I found this out when I ran across a customer maintaining a 23-member RAID5 array. It had tons of usable space of course, but could only tolerate a single disk failure, and worse, rebuilding that disk required fully reading all 22 remaining drives to recalculate parity across the whole set. Somehow it hadn't caught fire yet when we discovered it, but it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Re:The Battle Agaist Any Raid Five initiative (2016) by korinthian on Friday July 13, 2018 @05:12AM (#17521513)
> just one parity drive

That's not RAID5, that's RAID4.

Re:The Battle Agaist Any Raid Five initiative (2016) by krylon on Friday July 13, 2018 @05:40AM (#17521609)
Technically true, but with RAID5, you still only get one drive's worth of redundancy, no matter how many drives are in the array.
Re:The Battle Agaist Any Raid Five initiative (2016) by tinus_hn on Friday July 13, 2018 @08:11AM (#17522203)
That is the trade off. It’s not exactly a revelation given the definition of RAID 5.