Timeline for Can RAID 1 have more than two drives?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | theking2 | 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. | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 5:51 | comment | added | David Schwartz | "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. | |
| S Dec 17, 2018 at 4:04 | history | edited | fixer1234 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
general cleanup
|
| S Dec 17, 2018 at 4:04 | history | suggested | Makyen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Grammar; layout. Remove spam-like link to 404 page.
|
| Dec 17, 2018 at 3:18 | comment | added | Makyen | 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. | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 3:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 17, 2018 at 4:04 | |||||
| Sep 5, 2017 at 18:00 | review | Late answers | |||
| Sep 5, 2017 at 18:01 | |||||
| Sep 5, 2017 at 17:42 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 5, 2017 at 18:24 | |||||
| Sep 5, 2017 at 17:39 | history | answered | FireWire2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |