Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blue68f100
Well if you ran 2 mirrors. You would have about the same capacity. Would be slower comparied to raid 5. But on a disk failure you can still read the data.
|
Didn't I already say that?
Conisidering the speed over the network, I doubt the speed difference between RAID 1 and RAID 5 would be even noticed. Even if it was, Writes would be faster since these SNAPS use software RAID and RAID 5 can be very demaning on the minimal CPU/MEMORY being used in these SNAPs during a Write operation. To me, the real issue would be the loss in data capability (1/2 in RAID 1 versus 2/3 in RAID 5), which is also why RAID 5
with a hot spare makes no sense over RAID 1 in a RAID setup with less than 5 drives (like in an 8 or 12 drive setup).
As for this "numbers" problem, not only could it be the OS choking at a certain point, but the Firmware or even the software for the RAID 5 (software RAID remember).
I am not 100% sure where the next barrier is, but doing a little binary will lead one to think it is at least around 2.2 TB (4 bits more than the 137 GB barrier). 3 more bits would get us a 1.1 TB barrier, but that makes no sense on how things are done (usually goes in chunks of 4 or 8 bits, not 3). But when talking about an old version of BSD, the RAID software, or Adaptec, who knows for sure? If there is a barrier in that area at 3 more bits, it will be at 1,099,511,627,776 if that helps anyone. The next bit (4 bits) will allow 2,199,023,255,552 if anyone cares.
But I am a hardware guy, what do I know. This is a problem for those software guys.