[crxcte]

Why would someone want to use partitions in a say RAID 5 configuration if the objective is to protect your information from disk failure? Seems multiple disk drives instead of partitions would be used for disk failure.

If the disk drive fails and partitions were used all is lost in a RAID 5 scheme.

Am I missing something?

V/r

:ermm:

 

[JMPC]

In a RAID array the logical disk is protected if the RAID uses fault tolerance. It doesn't matter how many partitions you create, they're all protected because behind the scenes the array is using RAID5.

 

[crxcte]

JMPC,

So in your partitions, if the data has a bad sector on the RAID array is it recoverable but what if the whole disc is lost? Then nothing would be recoverable.

Would there be a higher level of security if disks were used instead of partitions?

v/r

:banghead:

 

[JMPC]

I'm really not sure what you're asking. In a RAID5 array you can lose a physical disk and the data will be safe. The failed drive should be replaced as soon as possible to maintain the fault tolerance.

 

[LMiller7]

Why would someone want to use partitions in a say RAID 5 configuration if the objective is to protect your information from disk failure? Seems multiple disk drives instead of partitions would be used for disk failure.

If the disk drive fails and partitions were used all is lost in a RAID 5 scheme.

Am I missing something?

V/r

:ermm:

No, you are not missing anything.

RAID using partitions is a stunt with no practical benefits. You get all of the disadvantages of RAID (except for having to deal with multiple drives) with none of the advantages. If one partition fails you lose everything, the very thing RAID 5 was designed to avoid. Add to that there will be impaired performance.

The one possible benefit is to learn configuration of RAID without the cost of multiple drives. But even that is questionable. And for some merely showing that it can be done is sufficient justification.

 

[JimE]

Why would someone want to use partitions in a say RAID 5 configuration if the objective is to protect your information from disk failure? :

The same reason people still create partitions on any HDD. A RAID array uses multiple HDD's and they then appear as a single drive to Windows. You can then treat that "single drive" as you would any other HDD in your system. How you divide up or use the RAID drive has nothing to do with data security. The same security provided by RAID 5 will apply, regardless of whether you treat the array as a single drive or divide it up into 10 partitions.

 

[crxcte]

No, you are not missing anything.

RAID using partitions is a stunt with no practical benefits. You get all of the disadvantages of RAID (except for having to deal with multiple drives) with none of the advantages. If one partition fails you lose everything, the very thing RAID 5 was designed to avoid. Add to that there will be impaired performance.

The one possible benefit is to learn configuration of RAID without the cost of multiple drives. But even that is questionable. And for some merely showing that it can be done is sufficient justification.

Thanks for the input. You seem to be the only one on this board that sees the whole picture of RAID and requirements of RAID 5.