Detailed info here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html The view from 50,000 ft.: Raid 0 gives you more throughput, costs nothing Raid 1 gives you more reliability, costs storage space Raid 5 gives you more throughput and reliability, costs storage space Figure out what you need (speed, reliability, or both) and choose accordingly. - Jared On Thursday 28 February 2002 02:37 pm, you wrote: > 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