Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 2
    Note that your last comment saying that RAID5 with a dedicated parity drive could not recover from a drive failure is incorrect. Even if RAID5 was implemented with the parity information entirely on one drive, it would still be able to recover from the failure of any one drive. If your argument was true, then that would mean that with distributed parity, 1/5th of your data would be unrecoverable when any drive failed, because you lost the parity information that was on 1/5th of that drive. That argument is just wrong.
    – Makyen
    Commented Dec 17, 2018 at 3:18
  • 1
    "RAID5 with a dedicated parity drive" is RAID 4. The difference between RAID 4 and RAID 5 is that RAID 4 has a dedicated parity drive and RAID 5 has parity distributed across all disks. If the dedicated parity drive fails on a RAID 4 configuration, the parity can be reconstructed from the data, just as would happens to all the parity lost on a failed drive of a RAID 5 array. Commented Dec 17, 2018 at 5:51
  • The reason that RAID 4 is not used is exactly the dedicated parity drive. Each write to the set would result in a write to the parity drive causing extra wear on exactly that drive. Using RAID5 will distributed the writes evenly over all devices.
    – theking2
    Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 13:51