Timeline for Ubuntu - OK to raid0 and raid1 on same two drives?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2015 at 1:44 | comment | added | buttonsrtoys | Awesome. Many thanks. I can afford to lose 1/2 the disk space, so your answer helps a lot. | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 1:31 | comment | added | Keltari | @buttonsrtoys That would be hardware RAID on the motherboard. That is definitely better than software RAID, performance wise. As for your second question in the comment, going full RAID1 would be better IMO then your original idea, but you lose 1/2 your available space. WIth RAID5, you lose only 1/3 of the space. | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 1:23 | comment | added | buttonsrtoys | I updated my post to reflect that it's firmware RAID. | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 1:05 | comment | added | buttonsrtoys | After reading your post I researched the RAID technology on my box (HP DC7900 SFF) and it uses Intel Matrix RAID which, according to wikipedia is neither hardware nor software RAID but firmware RAID? Not sure if that influences your answer. I like your 3TB solution but am hoping to stick with two. So, in your movie/files scenario, would the two disks get less thrashed with straight RAID1? | |
| Aug 1, 2015 at 23:14 | history | answered | Keltari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |