[Tfug] Crappy USB LVM/Software RAID10 performance?

[Jeffry Johnston]

I trust that you fixed those Wikipedia errors.
Jeff

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Bowie J. Poag <bpoag at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Damn straight. Should I ever enter into a disagreement while motoring, I
> threaten to reach for my glove compartment. Where I keep my gloves.
>
>
> In Zack's defense, the whole subject of RAID levels is absolutely peppered
> with bad information and bad definitions out there written by people who
> don't work directly with the technology, only know the subject
> third-handedly, or otherwise don't know what the hell they're talking about
> in general. I can point you to a half-dozen pages that say RAID5 is the
> safest RAID level to store your data at---a statement that is categorically
> and empirically false. That doesn't stop it from making the rounds. I'm
> looking at the Wikipedia page, and even it gets it wrong in some places.
>
> (Example: Single disk failures in RAID5 arrays do NOT affect storage
> capacity, no more than my car disappears when I get a flat tire. In RAID5,
> The contents of the missing/dead drive are reproduced logically via parity
> reconstruction. The capacity of the array does not change.)
>
> Cheers,
> Bowie
>