Raid-5 isn't hard to recover. Based on the type of storage you have it is
usually just a replacement of a disk and auto rebuild.

The issue with Raid-5, versus Raid-1 or Raid-10 is performance, but given
the faster I/O of newer technologies that isn't such a critical concern
unless you are supporting a large critical databse application.

Go for the larger storage capacity. Having an inadaquate primary storage
pool that cannot accomodate your nightly backups before migration to
cartridge storage pools will become an administrative nightmare as well as
jepordize the integrity of your backup environment.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Holland" <dana.holland AT NAVARROCOLLEGE DOT EDU>
To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:23 AM
Subject: [ADSM-L] Raid 1 vs Raid 5

Does anyone have opinions about setting up storage pools as Raid 1 as
opposed to Raid 5?  We have a very limited amount of disk space at the
moment and don't know when we'll get approval to buy more.  At the time
we first started planning to implement TSM, we purchased what we thought
would be  plenty of storage.  But, that was 4 years ago - and our usage
has grown.  Now, if I choose Raid 1, I barely have enough to create a
primary and copy storage pool for one of our servers.  And that isn't
allowing for any growth at all.  And I'm not sure how much additional
space incremental backups would take.  I know Raid 5 would give me more
storage space, but I've also read that it's harder to recover from if
there's a disk failure (read this on a TSM site somewhere).  So, I'm
wondering what some of you are using?


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5352 (20100809) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com