From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Erik Mouw Subject: Re: Two-disk RAID5? Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:24:05 +0200 Message-ID: <20060505102405.GA4900@harddisk-recovery.com> References: <216D6FA68B0F304DA93E95C5B786F2D12FCBBC@bart.corp.egenera.com> <20060501171128.GA18811@harddisk-recovery.com> <445AA801.6050404@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <445AA801.6050404@tmr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Jon Lewis , "Jansen, Frank" , Tuomas Leikola , John Rowe , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:18:57PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Erik Mouw wrote: > >No, the other way around: RAID1 is a special case of RAID5. > > > No it isn't. If you have N drives in RAID1 you have N independent copies > of the data and no parity, there's just no corresponding thing in RAID5, > which has one copy of the data, plus parity. There is no special case, > it just doesn't work that way. Set N>2 and report back. Just write out the formulas and it becomes obvious. > Sorry, I couldn't find a diplomatic way to say you're completely wrong. I guess we have to agree to disagree. Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands