<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RAID5 on two disks only</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/</link>
	<description>Dumping ground for small tips and big papers</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: chutz</title>
		<link>http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-320</link>
		<dc:creator>chutz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-320</guid>
		<description>@Anonymous: I agree with what you're saying and I would expect RAID5 to be slower when &lt;strong&gt;writing&lt;/strong&gt;, though I would also expect to hardly be noticeable at all.

The case with &lt;strong&gt;reading&lt;/strong&gt; is quite different and &lt;a href="http://tips.at.gg3.net/2007/02/12/raid-5-is-faster-than-raid-1-reading/" rel="nofollow"&gt;RAID5 is much faster&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Anonymous: I agree with what you&#8217;re saying and I would expect RAID5 to be slower when <strong>writing</strong>, though I would also expect to hardly be noticeable at all.</p>
<p>The case with <strong>reading</strong> is quite different and <a href="http://tips.at.gg3.net/2007/02/12/raid-5-is-faster-than-raid-1-reading/" rel="nofollow">RAID5 is much faster</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-319</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:33:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-319</guid>
		<description>RAID5 on two disks is NOT the same as RAID1 on two disks. Functionally, yes, but there are performance differences, somewhat dependant on implementation. RAID5 can never be faster than and is generally slower than RAID1, on two disks. Due to computational overhead, if nothing else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RAID5 on two disks is NOT the same as RAID1 on two disks. Functionally, yes, but there are performance differences, somewhat dependant on implementation. RAID5 can never be faster than and is generally slower than RAID1, on two disks. Due to computational overhead, if nothing else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chutz</title>
		<link>http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-234</link>
		<dc:creator>chutz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-234</guid>
		<description>As the linked article below shows, RAID5 on two disks is exactly the same as RAID1. 

http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2006/09/05/stupid-raid-tricks-with-evms-and-mdadm/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the linked article below shows, RAID5 on two disks is exactly the same as RAID1. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2006/09/05/stupid-raid-tricks-with-evms-and-mdadm/" rel="nofollow">http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2006/09/05/stupid-raid-tricks-with-evms-and-mdadm/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chutz</title>
		<link>http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>chutz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:23:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tips.at.gg3.net/2006/12/20/raid5-on-two-disks-only/#comment-51</guid>
		<description>The &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels" rel="nofollow"&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; was corrected soon after I posted this article. The article that I was referring to looked like &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_RAID_levels&#38;oldid=99659647#RAID_5" rel="nofollow"&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels" rel="nofollow">wikipedia article</a> was corrected soon after I posted this article. The article that I was referring to looked like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_RAID_levels&amp;oldid=99659647#RAID_5" rel="nofollow">this</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
