RAID Query...

Trevor Phillips T.Phillips at
Thu Nov 15 19:47:00 CST 2001

We've a mix of 2400 and 2500 servers here, and so far they've been all Linux 
servers, except now one's being set up with NT by another guy. Traditionally, 
I've chosen to go with RAID-1, but this guy is trying to talk me into RAID-5 
for the NT box, on the grounds that it's more reliable with greater up-time, 

He claims that if the OS corrupts a file with RAID-1, both disks get the 
corrupted file, so it's corrupt, but RAID-5 has this magical parity bit, so 
if a corrupted file is written, it'll flag it as corrupt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a big pile of baloney. I know 
the principle differences and operations of RAID-1 & RAID-5, and as far as I 
know, the OS sees it as 1 disk, so if a corrupt file is written, then it 
stays corrupt!

So, can someone please clarify the above issue? And I'd also appreciate if 
someone could summarise the pros and cons of RAID-1 vs RAID-5 (performance, 
space, reliability, etc...)


. Trevor Phillips             -  . 
: CWIS Systems Administrator     -           T.Phillips at : 
| IT Services                       -               Murdoch University | 
| On nights such as this, evil deeds are done. And good deeds, of     /
| course. But mostly evil, on the whole.                             /
 \      -- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)                          /

More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list