<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dan Ritter</b> <<a href="mailto:dsr-myth@tao.merseine.nu">dsr-myth@tao.merseine.nu</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:29:07PM -0500, MacNean Tyrrell wrote:<br>> <snip><br>> I did mean to ask, do all my drives have to be the same size? for Raid 5
<br>> (seems to be concensus best one for space saving with Raid that i can find<br>> on net). Or if not do i need even numbers, ie 2x250gig, 2x300gig, etc. or<br>> can i have 1x320, 2x200, 1x250, etc?<br><br>No, but all of the mirroring or striping schemes will limit you
<br>to the smallest common partition size.<br><br>Suppose you want RAID 5 over four drives: 100, 200, 200, 250.<br>You can do a 100 x 4 partition RAID 5 that gives about 300 of<br>usable space. You can use LVM to create a single filesystem that
<br>has no redundancy, but covers 100 + 200 + 200 + 250 = 850<br>usable. You could do 200 x 3 RAID 5 to get 400 usable, and still<br>have a whole unused 100 drive, and 50 free in a partition on the<br>250 drive.<br><snip>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>So if i bought 4x500gb sata drives, than used my IDE 320gig, could the 320 server as the redundancy one and i would still get close to 2TB for storage, or would i have to partition each drive by 250gig's, have 70 left on the 320 and the 250gig on the IDE could be the redundancy one?
</div><br> </div>