<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Raid - vo.rs</title><link>https://vo.rs/tags/raid/</link><description>Latest from the Raid desk at vo.rs.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:14:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://vo.rs/tags/raid/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Rethinking RAID: When Mirrors Beat Parity in a Homelab</title><link>https://vo.rs/story/rethinking-raid-when-mirrors-beat-parity-in-a-homelab/</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Almost everyone building their first NAS reaches for parity RAID, and I understand exactly why. Parity — RAID5, RAID6, RAIDZ1, RAIDZ2 — promises the best storage efficiency: buy five disks, lose only one disk&amp;rsquo;s worth to redundancy, keep four disks&amp;rsquo; worth of usable space. Mirroring feels wasteful by comparison, because half your capacity vanishes into the copy. On a spreadsheet parity wins, and the spreadsheet is the wrong tool for this decision. After running both at home, I now build mirrors far more often than the capacity maths suggests I should, and this article is the argument for why.&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:14:00 +0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>