<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Jim Cheetham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim@gonzul.net">jim@gonzul.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Steve Hodge <<a href="mailto:stevehodge@gmail.com">stevehodge@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> I've gone the more traditional way: fileserver with a 3TB RAID 5 for<br>
<br>
</div>RAID5? You are brave. Multidisk RAID-1 is far safer in the face of<br>
multiple disk failure, and simpler while you're trying to recover.<br>
Those are the only criteria I use :-)<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>It's all recoverable from other sources (DVDs or other copies on the network). It'd be a lot of work but not the end of the world. I'm not a big fan of RAID5 either but it's a reasonable tradeoff between performance, capacity, and data security in my case, primarily because of a lack of SATA ports and room in the box for more drives. If I had more space/ports I'd use mdraid 10 which is just as safe as RAID1 and generally gives better performance for my use patterns (accessing a single file sequentially). I expect I'll want more space within the next 6 months so I'll reevaluate then.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br><div><div class="h5"><br>
</div></div></div></div>