RAID 5 & RAID 6 - All You Need to Know as Fast As Possible
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- RAID 5 & 6 are professional forms of RAID for hard drives and SSDs. This brief overview aims to give you a basic understanding of how they work
FORUM LINK: linustechtips.c...
Wow.... someone caught it... If I meant three I would have used my thumb, index, and middle finger. Index, middle & ring means six.
I thought only Germans used their thumb, index, and middle finger? XD
Seriously though, way more comfortable on the hand to express 3 that way. Holding the pinkie down with the thumb feels... unnecessarily strenuous.
Matthew Bailey I think using pointer middle and ring is more comfortable
@@matthewb1601 It... really doesn't... do you have a hand muscle condition?
@@Omlet221 you have problems
@@matthewb1601 completely the opposite...for me at least. Using the thumb l, pointer and middle finger to express "3" is more on the painful side for my ring finger.
The best raid configuration is RAID: Shadow Legends
ok zoomer
Okay boomer
@@rang8476 ok doomer
@@liamvanderploeg1254 ok coomer
RAID: GARBAGE LEGENDS 😂
0:08 Raid 6...*Holds up 3 fingers*
Sam Edwards Oh, hahaha fair enough
-.-
Sam Edwards
Thanks for the fun fact!
beat me to it by 2 years, good job
You could also think of it as VI with roman numerals
who is here after seeing the server failure video?
+Piece o' LEGO Me!
lulz, i am :3
+Piece o' LEGO Me!
NONE OF IT... Is coming back if we lost a raid 5.
Piece o' LEGO yep
We still archive all Linus Tech Tips footage on a big-ass array of Seagate 3TB drives.
I use RAID6, but I am considering upgrading to RAID61, which is a RAID 6 (2 drives can fail) with an entire matching RAID 6 mirroring the first one, so in an 8 drive array up to 10 drives could fail without data loss :p
me studying for IT Profession Exam which is tomorrow... with almost 10 yrs younger linus. Thanks Linus!
"Rebuilding the array... can be time consuming."
That's a huge understatement. It takes upwards of several DAYS to rebuild larger arrays (say, a dozen terabytes or so). I work for a NAS manufacturer in tech support and we always get calls and tickets from people who expect a huge enterprise RAID 5 or 6 to rebuild in a much more timely manner. They usually think our products bottleneck the process somehow when it's simply a limitation of current HDD speeds, which have lagged way behind storage capacity.
Also, for the love of God, back up your data. Always. It doesn't matter how many redundant drives you have. If they're all connected to the same motherboard, THEY ARE NOT BACKUPS.
What about the process makes it take so long?
Like I said, read and write performance has not advanced with HDDs the way storage capacity has. If you're rebuilding after losing an 8TB drive you've got way more data to copy than you would have had a few years ago, but it's not going to write much faster than it would have a few years ago.
Eli M Oh, sorry, your comment got cut off after "It can take several days to rebuild larger arrays". Thanks!
people never want to understand that RAID is not a backup. seen this a lot.
last month I got a failed disk in a raid 6 array with 15 drives of 6tb. It took just a few hours to rebuild and the server was being used during the process.
Prediction:This will quickly become Linus's most-viewed video
Why they ever let him hold those hard drives I will never know.
Zachary Wong still got 6.2 mil views to go lol
(insert Kirby faint sound here, as there are still millions of views to go)
It was not.
Anybody else notice the haircut at 0:14 ?
With the magic of editing, you can turn your bad hair day into a good hear day!
˙sɯɐǝɹʇsǝʌıן uı ʞɹoʍ ʇı sǝop ɹou ǝɟıן ןɐǝɹ uı ʞɹoʍ ʇou sǝop sıɥʇ ˙soǝpıʌ uo sʞɹoʍ ʎןuo sıɥʇ :ɹǝɯıɐןɔsıp
Kirby how did you done that
does anybody actually listen to what he is saying
It's hair language
question is.. did he get his haircut on set? or did he get his haircut offset a different day.. finished filming and just wore the same shirt to make it look like it was all the same day? regardless... did he stop filming because he didnt like his hair? Is he that guy who goes ape-shit on the lighting guy as they're trying to film? lol
Now I won't lose my porn again.
i'll let you in on a secret: it's all available online already...
+movement2contact xD nah my internet speed is potato like 0.5mb/s :'( download is da only option...
lol
i won't like your comment cause you have 69 likes
LOL
Say's Raid 5 shows 5 fingers, say's Raid 6 shows 3?
I don't get it XD
When I first time saw linus fall from the ceiling, I was like dafug
I just realized that the acronym for Fast as Possible is "FAP"...
I can't believe I never noticed it before. Maybe my mind isn't as perverted as I thought
>Quickie
>FAP
Well then...
In a hurry? Then you need AFAP! lol
Nad Kudo xD
77 people visit pornhub.
They actually used to be quickie :(
I didn't understand this but I understood raid 0,1,10 though
Think of raid 5 as this: You have 2 drives for data that splits them in half just like in raid 0 (ex drive A and drive B), and you have third one (drive R) that writes only 1 if both drives (A and B) wrote two 0s or two 1s at the same location, or R writes 0 is one drive wrote 1 and other wrote 0 at same location on drives. So you are basically backing up two drives of data (A and B), with only one extra drive (R), so if one of them fails (A, B, or R), you can use other two to recover data for third one.
***** So it's like raid 1 but for 3 drives right?
Mohamed Osama no, it's like raid 10 (raid 0 + raid1) but with 3 instead of 4 drives :)
I get it thanks :)
This is mostly accurate, but a disk that is dedicated solely to parity data only existed in earlier versions of RAID (3 and 4 specifically), which are now obsolete. RAID 5 and 6 are different because the parity data is distributed across all of the disks, which gets better read performance (especially for random reads).
Also, RAID 5, 6, and 10 all have advantages and disadvantages that make the best choice a matter of what's more important to you between performance, storage space, and fault tolerance. If you're a home user the simplest option is just RAID 1 with two disks, plus an external backup of some kind.
That was some seriously wrong info. Just about everything was wrong. For example... RAID 1 would only provide 3TB of usable storage no matter how many drives you have in the array. You didn't even cover the most important risk information for parity RAID.
Hey Linus... I'd like to have a segment on the - difference between the H87 or H77 and Z87 or Z77...
H77 and H87 are useless for gaming.
*****
As long as you don't plan on overclocking, what's wrong with H87?
Storage spaces IS RAID. When you set it up it asks you if you want mirroring (RAID1) or parity (RAID5)
how tf is he holding those drives without dropping it
So, just so I am clear on this. In RAID 0, you get 1/2 the info in each drive, so failing of one drive is catastrophic, but write speed is increased with each drive. RAID 1 is the opposite of RAID 0, and you have 2 copies of each drive. Raid 5 has 1 "Safe" drive, and has the rest as RAID 0's. So if one drive fails, it can be fixed, and doesn't suffer too much from write speeds. RAID 6 has 2 "Safe" drives with the full information, and the rest are RAID 0's so 2 drives can fail, and it can still be re-built. Finally, RAID 10 is 1&0 so there is one pair of RAID 0, and one pair of RAID 1. This means if one from each category fails, you can still fully recover, and have nice disk speeds.
RAID 10 is not one pair of RAID 0 and one pair of RAID 1. It requires min 4 drives. It forms two pairs of RAID 1 and uses RAID 0 way of stripping (strip+mirror). And people are saying Linus discussed RAID 3 instead of RAID 5 because RAID 5 uses some parity thing in it.
Thank you very much Linus, we have this in our exams and you helped clear it up. I was literally taking notes while you went on explaining about the RAID setups. Again, thank you very much.
These vids have so much well explained info that if you watch a few dozen in a row the amount of knowledge gained is pretty phenomenal compared to the efficiency of school or university. It's like getting an extra brain
Am I the only one who noticed that he put 3 fingers up when he said raid 6
His fingers were in raid configuration!
ok.
linus falling
I think Raid 5 and 6 have become more mainstream for home users running NAS stuff, compared to Raid 1 or 10 which have fallen off completely imo.
I mean sure, raid 10, probably best for 4 drives compared to a raid 6, but it expands far better on a raid 6. Youre over the hump
Not sure why he says RAID 5 and 6 are not good for consumers. I use a Synology 1511+ NAS with 5 drives on RAID 6 at home. As if that isn't enough, I back up to a cloud service. My data is better protected than a lot of small businesses and I sleep better at night because of it!
Working on my NAS right now, just got a bunch of sata cables i needed.
I used to think raid 6 was useless for home users, even on massive NAS. I mean, when are you gonna have 2 drives fail at once? Dont you want that space?
Well, that drive isn't doing redundancy when you are expanding an array. So one error, and your data is gone. Definitely glad im going with a raid 6
I know Linus many years since I love computer stuff...until I see this, he said five then six, suddenly I pause and look again...actually when he said 3 or 6, it was ASL! I am deaf and I know the ASL. Didn't know he knew ASL until today!!
"Raid 1 will give you 6tb of space using 3tb drives", completely wrong, in raid 1 the capacity of the entire array is the capacity of the smallest drive in it. "Raid 5 has 1 of the drives reserved for parity" again wrong, that is raid 4, in Raid 5 parity is split across all the drives, that is it's primary advantage over other lower raid levels. As much as I love Linus this is a really bad video.
i got a better raid
just buy 2x 2 bay external enclosure with each running raid 0 and raid 1 lmfao
then get a software to sync them over
speed+mirror
done
LINUS! You described RAID 5 as RAID 3!!!
How come you help up 3 fingers for raid 6? Baby linus was still learning how to use the fingies lol
This is pretty much gonna get me through my test tomorrow, thanks Linus!
2:07 Random moment
greate I got Raid 0,1,5,6 and 10
now I want to know what the other seting on my reader is for like raid 3, clone, PM and Large
Linus baby face should reappear some time in 2023
Never use RAID5 or RAID6. If you are an IT tech chances are you will:
1. Get a call to go deal with a RAID5 or RAID6 disaster
2. Never get a call about a RAID1 or RAID10 disaster
linus you have taught me probably 60 percent of what i know about pcs, for that i thank you. i noticed you dont have a video on how raid cards work and how to use them, at least i did not find one if you did. can u plz do one!! im subscribed so ill see it :)
You forgot about RAID: Shadow Legends
Answered my question in - as you say - "as fast as possible". I'm working on a new server with 4 drives and had the option to choose between RAID5 and RAID6, so your discussion about impact on systems with smaller# vs. larger# of drives was helpful.
yes.
yep i am lost then again i was lost on raid 0 that's why i came here ..
i am just learning this ..
i use raid 0 + raid 1 on external lmfao
speed + mirror at its finest
You definitely need to add in a couple examples setting them up
"explained as fast as possible..."
It holds a "check" value of the other drives, which allows you to work backward and figure out what the failed drive had. It's more calculation heavy which is why it takes ages to build the array as well as rebuild it after a failure.
i have to say that i run RAID 5 on my home storage pc with 5 3tb HDD in it. this pc (other then the HDD) was my old gaming PC that i have upgraded. it is used to house all the DVDs that i have got over the years and allow me to get to them where ever i go along with programs and files that i want to get to. i found this to be cheaper them going out can getting a NAS that can hold 3-5 drives and because my MB can do a RAID 5 much cheaper (not so much easier) then getting a RAID controller card. $500-$700 USD for the NAS vs i think i spent like $250 USD on the HDD. but what do you all think
2019 you can get an LSI RAID card with 512mg of cash for $30
RAID is good for keeping you up & running and avoiding down time. Backups are what save you from ultimate data loss. Also, completely off-site storage isn't mandatory in the absolute: Just keep an air-gapped backup (meaning: NOT connected 24/7, not connected at any other time of day/week/month you do the actual backup) in a fireproof lockbox or safe - if the premises burns down, gets flooded or your equipment gets otherwise completely trashed, you haven't lost absolutely everything.
SebastianLinus LinusSebastian Why do you insist that a) RAID 5 has dedicated parity and b) that RAID 6 w/6+ drives requires a hardware RAID controller?
RAID 3 and 4 have dedicated parity drives. RAID 5 and 6 stripe the parity and data across all member disks.
In refutation of the your incorrect assertion about a hardware RAID controller for 6+ disk RAID 6 being required:
I have 2 Dell r410s each with an ARC1320 hooked to one each Norco DS24E. Each of those is fully populated w/24 4TB Seagate NAS drives. Both servers run freenas with the volumes in the SAS enclosures as 4 vdevs of 6 member drives in raidz2 (RAID6 effectively/essentially). Each server has just under 58TiB usable. I use the 2nd one as backup for the primary via nightly rsync. Other than it's not offsite it's a reasonable setup.
Note, again, no hardware RAID controller is required. performance is excellent. Both reads/writes saturate the 1Gbe network. I have aspirations of either bonding another 1Gbe link (r410s have 2) or going straight to 10Gbe. The latter would require an r710 to house more than one HBA. Or just get the r710 and bond all 4 of its NICs.
In any event, if one has a lot of large footprint media like a significant DVD/Blu-ray library, as in my case, this was quite practical.
Now I can watch any of my content from any device/tv in my home via plex. And I don't have to worry about scratches/scuffs in the source media.
I'm pretty sure he meant you lose a hard drive to parity information, as in n-1 for n being any number of member disks, your available disks will be n-1. You should use a hardware raid controller for 5 and 6 because while you hold that "performance is excelent" it won't hold a candle to the actual performance you'll get from a hardware raid. It's the difference between on board graphics and a dedicated GPU. Also, using a dedicated computer to the task is kind of missing the point he was making, I'd never run a raid 6 on a workstation computer without having a dedicated raid card, because you'd be draining CPU cycles to the RAID that are better suited to be offloaded to a card and used elsewhere.
Mostlyharmless1985 Perhaps, but this is the 2nd video he's done where he has specifically mentioned 'dedicated parity _drive_'. It's, arguably, minor but there is a pretty significant delta between the statement and reality of how the RAID level works. If it were some random n00b, I'd just chalk it up to that. Linus should know better.
The issue with a dedicated RAID card is that if your _card_ dies you are right and truly hosed. I've had 2 fairly high end Adaptec cards tank and since a) No card-level RAID meta data is written to the disks and no way to save off that config, I had to wait for a replacement card and pull from backup. Software RAID, is superior in at least this regard. An md can be mounted on any Linux live system or, in my use-case, the zpool can be mounted on, mostly, any freebsd/Solaris system. Downtime is minimized.
As for the use of the system being lessened by, if the entire reason for its being is a NAS/media server, as in this one, it's perfectly valid. Further, this is not some anemic readynas NV+ thing. It actually has the cycles to move the data w/out issue. If it were a db/rendering server then it might be enough of a hit to warrant a hw controller. But then a RAM-SAN would be even better for _that_ scenario. For my, and in general (r410s are cheap), use-case it's an excellent setup.
As to your bold claim of the perf superiority of a hw controller, I'm skeptical. While these are 6Gb/s 7200 rpm Seagates, they are still mechanical (i.e. relatively slow), the bus is still x8 pcie 2, the HBA is still the same SAS be limitations as hw card, and again, it's not some anemic embedded SoC implementation.
I suspect there may only be a real delta, in favor of a hw controller, for SSDs.
I'd love to have hard numbers, but for that there'd be a sizeable cost. Both in terms of hw and time.
interesting videos, is a vps hosting with raid 10 a good choice ? considering a machine that splits into multiple other vps' and one folk consum a lot will it affect the others on raid 10 ?
i love ya man ! but when you said raid 5 you held up 5 fingers and when you said raid 6 you help up THREE fingers !!
:)
RAID 5 can sustain 1 failure, RAID Linus can sustain 2 drops.
If i write code that has bugs, can I use RAID on them to kill the bugs :)
I've love Linus's vid's for a while and still enjoy them I am even more happy to know that Techquickie was created on my birthday friggin' AWESOME! thank you Linus for helping me with computer technology I've learned so much from watching your videos keep up the great work.
You don't have to use an expensive raid controller if you use ZFS!
I think the calculations starting @ 1:50 are a little off...
4x 3TB drives in RAID 1 = 6 TB of usable space, not 12TB? Same story for the RAID 5 and RAID 6 calculations.
ruclips.net/video/1P8ZecG9iOI/видео.htmlsi=i6Ll8p59x2lVqAOA&t=110
Wondering if you can help with RAID migration, from Single Disc RAID0 to RAID1, I'm stuck with 2 of my HP Servers, ProLiant ML110 G6 with Smart Array P212 without BBWC.
I might just be a bit dumb, but it took me awhile to figure out raid 5, and if anybody wants my explanation, here it is.
(Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't know a terrible amount.)
(TL:DR @ Bottom)
You have your 3 drives (A,B,C)
A/B Drives are the data, storing it by splitting the data.
C drive backs up both using XOR.
That is quite easy, but how XOR saves it is something I didn't know, so here it is.
Say you have your data split, and it shows up in 3bit (for the explanation) binary as
a = 101
b = 011
C saves this by comparing 101 to 011 in XOR.
(If you have one 1 after comparing a single slot, you get a "1", if you get 11 or 00, you get a "0")
XOR 101 and 011 gives us 110. (1 and 0 = 1 ------ 0 and 1 = 1 ------- 1 and 1 = 0) (Comparing the two sets)
So C = 110
If B fails, we can use C to figure out what it was
A = 101 we know, and C=110
Using XOR to compare, you get 0 (1 and 1) 1 (0 and 1) 1 (1 and 0)
So we determined B = 011
Checking the first B, this is correct
This also works in more than three drives and 3bits using the same method
A = 101
B = 111
C = 100
D = 000
E = ?
compare in sets of 2
101 | 111 = 010
100 | 000 = 100
Compare the two
010 | 100 = 110
E = 110
Say drive C fails
Compare E to A,B, and D
Acom = 011
Bcom = 001
Dcom = 110
Compare AB
011 | 001 = 010
Compare 010 to Dcom
110 | 010 = 100
CGuess = 100
Real C = 100
(This also works if you compare A - D, B-D, Etc. If you want to try it - go ahead.)
(This works with more than 3 bits, but for the purpose of explanation, it makes it easy.)
TL:DR = Make the last drive the XOR of the rest, and then compare it to the good ones if one goes down.
Raid 1? You mean RAID 10, right?
Would have been nice to have had the diagram that you had for RAID 5 on RAID 6. Consistency is always nice, and it'd make it easy to understand if you use the diagrams.
Your description of RAID 5 is actually RAID 3. RAID 5 Stripes the parity across all the disks as well as striping the data. You should really update this.
RAID 5 should be avoided as much as possible. You might think it's the best solution, but if you lose a drive, you are susceptible to a cascade failure of many drives as they speed up to rebuild the data on a new drive. RAID 6 spreads the workload, but it's still not ideal.
Is the performance difference on 3 and 4 drives RAID 5: is both the read/write performance will be impacted a lot on a 4 drives vs a 3 drive?
If I add a fourth of the same drives later, will I have to entirely rebuild the RAID?
Is write performances with 4 drives RAID 5 will catch up with the RAID 10?
This is bad advice. Raid 5 should never be used for anything important. Especially if you're using large capacity drives. Even with an error rate of 10^15 like those WD reds, a rebuild would have a 7% chance of failing and losing ALL data. The 8 drive scenario in raid 5 is crazy. Sure, 21TB is nice, but if one fails, you'll have a 17.5% chance of losing all data during the rebuild due to URE. Hard drives are cheap. Use raid 10 whenever possible. Raid 1 is also a safe choice.
The biggest thing you have to know about raid 5 and raid 6 is that you have to use disk with URE 10^15 and grater, when using above 1TB per disk. If not, expect usual disk failures.
I never had a hard time replacing a drive in a RAID 5 SCSI array. If hot-swappable, it's easy and the volume can be rebuilt ...for the next day. That was a while ago. Writing/reading to the array, however, is much faster, not slower. Are you speaking of some other type of array technology? I used to use a big tape library for back-up. What is used these days? Another array?
raid 5 and 6 have normal write speed if you build them in linux and optimize it.
Everything he says is true ONLY for Windows because you cannot optimize raid in this os .
raid 1 and 5 can survive 1 drive failure. raid 6 - 2 drive failure.
Here recommendation of which raid level you should choose based on my experience in linux.
raid 1 - if you have 2 drives
raid 5- if you have 3 drives
raid 6 - for more that 3 drives.
hi, I have 4TB SSD partitioned into two 2TB each, and I have Win 7 installed on one partition and Win 10 on the 2nd, once I boot to either window, each partition shows only 1.5TB, I could not figure out why, please help.
with raid 5 can you add different size hard drive for example 2x 3TB 1x 1TB 3x 4TB NAS HDD plz help me out
Maybe I misunderstood something here, but saying that one of the drives in RAID 5 is reserved seems false. The whole point of RAID 5 over 0 is that the information is striped across all the drives in case one fails, because who knows which will fail?? Not trying to be a jerk or anything, there is just a lot of false information out there and I usually find your videos to be accurate.
Linus is aging well. For the lack of a better word, he looks absolutely ridiculous here hahaha. He's much more presentable now. The beard makes such a difference, and I speak for me as well.
Ok, Raid 5 can handle atleast 1 disk failure. But how does the raid controller knows what disk to backup or reserve if out of 3 disk it can guarantee 1 + 1 disk storage in the array? This is the only RAID config that i know how to setup but dont know why it works..
Hi, I have a question, in case you have a RAID 5 with a controller, and the controller fail. You can connect the disks to another controller card without losing the data?
I don't think, I understand, why RAID 6 could always loose two disks, without loosing any data in an array with four disks. If you loose the two drives, that stores the real data, and non of the drives, that is for recovery, could the data be rebuild? With only twice the same rebuilding data, wouldn't all data be lost?
"This video is about RAID 5", raises 5 fingers "...and RAID 6", goes bananas.
wtf RAID 1 with more of 2 drives is kinda stupid. I could understand 3 disks max...
i have a hypothetical thought for a raid array was wondering i i could use 2 240gig ssd's and have them back up to a 1tb hd so if one fails it wont be problem just to replace it.
No ad at the end!? *_IMPOSSIBLE!!!_*
linus tech forums... lol. Went on there to see if I could get some help on something and it was full of raging, defensive, unhelpful, arrogant twats.
Wait, did someone just drop Linus?
Well well well... how the turntables have....
RAID: SHADOW LEGENDS
Loving these videos, keep up the good work!
are all hdd's and ssd's with the RAID stuff or can you just pop in 6 TB and actually get 6 TB?
What is fault tolerance for Pool consists of approx. 200 drives and its is RAID 5.
I have RAID5 and it was built by a friend. I've barely any idea what it is, but I have 4 2TB hard drives in that system.
But if your desktop explodes then that still doesn't stop your storage from getting fucked.
After losing 3tb worth of data on one drive. I'm now going to always use RAID 5.
Would I be right to say that raid 10 is the best for a regular gamer that uses his pc just for gaming? Would that be best for you if you have the drives. I understand that you lose half the space but Idc.
A very simple picture. P tells if its odd or even numer of 1. Take into account that the parity part is not actual data, its just parity. The other 2 on same lane is the data.
1 0 1(p2)
0(p1) 1 0
1 1(p2) 0
0 1 1(p2)
1(p2) 1 1
If 1 drive fails, lets say the left lane. Then you put in an empty drive. It checks
1st row: "Oh its supposed to be 2 times 1, and the other 2 drives are 0 and 1, so i guess i must be 1.
2nd row " Ph, there is no parity, so i must be the parity: i must be p1 since its 1 and 0 on the other 2.
3rd row: "There should be 2 times 1, and i see 1 and 0, so i must be 1 then."
4th row: " There should be 2 times 1, and i can see 2 times 1, so i must be a 0"
5th row: "There is no parity, but i see 2 times 1, so i must be p2"
Do I need all 4 drives with the same storage capacity to use RAID 5/6?
I guess all this "Linus has small hands" shit was a hoax, that must make Slick some kind of giant (not that we didn't know that already).
So we aren't going to say anything about how he quickly noticed he didn't have six fingers so decided 3 was okay
Helpful but his shrill voice is like ear sandpaper to me. I find older Linus much easier to listen to.
Anyone here in 2021?
I am probably pretty late to this but after watching this video I feel I should say something, sorry @Techquickie but this is incorrect :(
What you actually described in this video is RAID 3 or 4. Raid 3 and 4 needs a minimum of 3 HDD's, two for striping data across and one for a disk array parity. RAID 3 generates the parity at a byte level whereas RAID 4 does it at a word level. The problem with this approach is that the parity drive becomes a bottleneck because every write needs to access the parity drive.
RAID 5 was actually created to remove this problem by stripping the parity throughout all drive arrays, you still have the capacity of N-1 drives because of this, but you are no longer limited to accessing the parity on one drive.
RAID 6 is an extension of RAID 5, the common RAID 6 creates 2 parity bits, one for the traditional horizontal array and a vertical one as well (most common, but not only method)
Dumb question, but he says that the array can sustain failures because of the redundant drive, but what happens when u use more than the 3tb that the redundant drive in the raid 5 array can mirror?
Crazy Lepricon
Yeah in Storage Spaces, I don't have to deal with ( well i better set up raid FIRST then install windows...wait..I already install windows.
I'd rather not risk having to start all over again just to create a RAID set up that way.
Besides. I'd rather do my backups manually. At least I KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt that I did my backups that way. No confusion. that's the way i prefer my pc experience remain.