specs for running 35 machines

[Jim Kronebusch]

> RAID 5 is not the most fault tolerant -- although it is better than RAID0
> or no RAID at all.
> 	http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

What was in my head didn't completely make it to the screen, I was thinking RAID5 is the
most fault tolerant for the money, not out of all options.  I personally chose RAID10
(RAID 1+0) but many cheaper RAID controllers don't handle that and RAID10 sacrifices a
good share of drive space, where RAID5 looses less.

Thanks for straightening me out Gavin.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Cotter Technology 
Department, and is believed to be clean.