From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nix Subject: Re: New setup: partitions or raw devices Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:19:43 +0000 Message-ID: <87tvxazahs.fsf@esperi.org.uk> References: <7f6abcbc-7dfa-0252-e9df-984e7e637936@thelounge.net> <3654cb70-9d7c-dfc0-f57d-c57004f11f92@thelounge.net> <253c22a2-8f77-2737-b3b4-6beef107c28c@youngman.org.uk> <14078b47-29dd-6c07-f680-77ac9445be32@thelounge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <14078b47-29dd-6c07-f680-77ac9445be32@thelounge.net> (Reindl Harald's message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:27:53 +0100") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Reindl Harald Cc: Wol's lists , Gandalf Corvotempesta , Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 29 Nov 2017, Reindl Harald said: > Am 29.11.2017 um 23:20 schrieb Wol's lists: >> On 29/11/17 20:02, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> why not RAID5/6? besides https://www.askdbmgt.com/why-raid5-should-be-avoided-at-all-costs.html the parity data are additional >>> writes wearing out the drives >> >> So, if I have a four-drive raid 5, for every 3 blocks of data I write I write 1 parity block. But with raid 1 or 10, for every 3 >> blocks of data I write, I write *3* "parity" blocks! >> >> What was that about "the additional writes wearing out the drives" then? >> >> (Yes, I get the write amplification thing - but if you are writing a lot of data, then raid 5 needs far *fewer* writes.) > > RAID10 has a lot of other benefits: That's not actually answering the question that was asked, y'know. If you're against RAID 5 because the parity writes wear the drives out, you should be much more strongly against RAID 10 for the same reason. -- NULL && (void)