Re: Am I RAIDed or mirrored -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Right, but if he just adds the fourth, then the parity still remains only on the first three... right? So while SAS improves the three disk situation, it still doesn't change the parity implementation of raid 5... right?

On 10/31/2009 01:56 PM, Sue Baker wrote:

Lukas Beeler wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:14:15 GMT:

That's a non
optimal configuration as three drive RAID5's are notoriously
slow on the IBM i.

I would agree with this statement if the drives were SCSI. But
new SAS technology has changed the rules for parity protection
and RAID5 with 3 drives with SAS rocks!

The biggest difference is how parity is striped across the
drives. In the SCSI days, only 2 of the 3 drives actually had
parity data, so you ended up with what appeared to be 2 drives of
1/2 size and the 3rd drive full size. This could wreak havoc
with performance because the full size drive would get
approximately 2x the disk requests from a system perspective.

With SAS, parity lands on all 3 of the drives in a 3 drive parity
set. So they all are equal in size and from a system perspective
share equally the disk requests.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.