Battle Against Any Raid Five

[akerl_]

http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/

[elf_m_sternberg]

I don't see any suggestions for a replacement technology.

[oofabz → elf_m_sternberg]

I use RAID-Z, a feature of ZFS. It works great.

[barrkel → oofabz]

It's slightly better than hardware raid5, but raidz2 is much better, and raid10 (also possible with zfs) is much faster as well as more reliable.

[verbatim → elf_m_sternberg]

RAID-6 and RAID-10 are the usual go-tos.

[kenko → elf_m_sternberg]

You didn't look, apparently. Even the URL of the "Why should I not use RAID 5?" gives it away: http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

And it ends: "Conclusion? For safety and performance favor RAID10 first, RAID3 second,RAID4 third, and RAID5 last!"

[acjohnson55 → kenko]

"You didn't look, apparently"? Come on, don't be a jerk. I had the same question. A well written piece doesn't force you to read the references for the actual thesis. How do I know that link on the side isn't one of the pointless arguments the author quoted?

Maybe it makes sense upon first read to someone with a lot of context, but as a home page of an initiative (movement? project?) it doesn't do a very good job of explaining what it's advocating for.