sony-vaio-z-series team mailing list archive

[Peter Fern <sonylinux@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/03/10 17:30, Jan Groth wrote:
> Talking about RAID 0 - Well, I'n not explicitly aware of a increased
> data loss risk. My motivation is rather that I need the capacity,
> because 2x64 GB is not much for a laptop.

Just to re-iterate, any single drive failure will destroy _all_ data on
all disks in RAID0, so best to either use the individual drives as
individual volumes (simplest, most portable, probably most sensible), or
join them into a single LVM volume (more complex, limited benefit,
certainly more painful to resolve following a failure, but won't lose
all your data if a single drive fails).

> Furthermore RAID 10 seems to require at least 4 devices, which is
> something I clearly cannot fulfill...
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_10)

The OP said he had 4 disks, I just assumed you had the same.

> > and really, with SSDs, do you need that much speed?
>
> hey, that's my own point from 1992. Back in these days I started a
> flamewar with everyone who said that he needed more then 60 MB hard
> drive capacity. I simply couldn't imagine a usecase where someone
> would need THAT much capacity :-)

Well, sure, that's all well and good, unless you're making a decision
about speed vs reliability - IMHO you need to have a a really good
use-case for running RAID0, ie - I really need X throughput for Y
application, which I can't get out of single drive or parity RAID
performance (and understand that all your data may go 'poof!' one day
when any drive fails, and know that you're OK with that).

Cheers,
Pete