<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Steve Hodge</b> <<a href="mailto:stevehodge@gmail.com">stevehodge@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 6/20/06, Chris Henderson <<a href="mailto:jchendo@gmail.com">jchendo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> On 6/20/06, Debabrata Banerjee <<a href="mailto:davatar@comcast.net">davatar@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<br>> > I already have several other raid arrays in my myth box for other
<br>> purposes,<br>> > I am quite sure this is not what I want.<br>><br>> OK,<br>><br>> But i dont understand. Please exlpain. You say you want a fault tolerant<br>> files system, doesnt Raid 5 give you that?
<br><br>RAID 5 gives you a high level of fault tolerance at the cost of<br>complexity and capacity. What Debabrata wants is a partially tolerant<br>setup, basically a file system that can span X disks, and when a disk<br>
fails it only loses the files on the failed disk (i.e. 1/X of the data<br>if it were full). It's sort of in between RAID 0 and RAID 5: RAID 5<br>can have a single disk fail without any data loss, RAID 0 will lose<br>all data when a single disk fails, this hypothetical filesystem would
<br>lose some but not all of the data if a disk fails.<br><br>Steve<br>_</blockquote></div>THanks steve,<br><br>I understand now. <br>Some time it takes a while.<br><br>Also i think it would be good for (as i just said in another post) to clarify exactly what data you want to keep. I sorta assume everything in the /video dir as i have a very large DVD collection and losing that hurst as it take ages to rip them all back in.
<br><br>Lets not mention music or MAME.<br><br>Raid 5 for pure TV recordings isa complete over kill. in my case it is necessary to a point.<br><br>CH<br>