Well from what I have found having the RAID-5 with the hot spare is pretty good. Raid-5 pretty much gives you the best of both worlds that being stripping (raid-0) and mirroring(raid-1). You get close to the performance of Raid-0 with the the near raid-1 redundancy. Yes if two drives fail in a raid-5 you are toast, but if you lose one drive in a raid-0 its all gone. If you have a mirror you can loose one drive and still be up, but again if both drives fail your data is gone. But probably the best bang would be having two controllers with raid-0 then mirroring that setup. But the most cost effective way is raid-5. Well in my humble opinion. Jason oh yeah if i got raid 0 and 1 backwards, sorry i tend to do that from time to time. Quoting Jason Lohrenz <jmlohren at citilink.com>: > Setting up a client PC. > Their current Windoze server is going out the door. > It has 4 20GB SCSI HD's in it. > Currently it's setup so 3 of them are in a RAID-5 Configuration with the > 4th as a Hot-Spare (They are all hot swapable). > I've heard some cons against RAID-5, and that RAID-1 or other RAID options > are 'faster' and better. IE with above only 1 drive can go bad at a time, > with a max of 2, but only if the spare has been brought up completely > before the 2nd fails...etc.. whereas other implementations can have 2 go > bad at once have you, as long as they aren't each other's mirrors. > > Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated! > > JasonL > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >