Exercise 1: Recommending a RAID Level for a Regeneratable Scratch/Cache Workload — Possible Solution ==================================================================== Recommended level: RAID 0 Explanation: The scenario's two defining traits are: (1) raw read/write speed should be maximized, and (2) the data itself has explicitly no need for protection, since it can be regenerated at any time if lost. Per the chapter, "RAID 0... Performance is the best of any level here, since reads and writes spread across multiple disks in parallel" -- this directly satisfies the first requirement better than any other level in the chapter, since RAID 0 dedicates 100% of every disk's capacity and I/O bandwidth to striped data with none reserved for mirroring or parity overhead. The chapter is explicit that RAID 0's own real cost is reliability: "losing any single disk in the array loses all the data -- reliability actually gets worse than a single disk, not better." For most workloads this would be a serious problem, which is exactly why the chapter frames RAID 0 as "only worth it when redundancy already exists elsewhere... and pure speed matters more than this specific array's own survival." This scenario is precisely that case: the data is explicitly described as regeneratable at any time, meaning the consequence of losing the entire array (which RAID 0 makes a real, elevated risk) is deliberately low -- there is no unique, unrecoverable data at stake, only the recomputation cost of regenerating it, which the team has already accepted as acceptable. Every other level in the chapter (1, 5, 6, 10) spends some capacity and/or performance specifically on redundancy this workload doesn't need, making RAID 0 the level that best matches the stated priorities rather than paying for protection that provides no real value here. WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER ------------------------------ This selects RAID 0 specifically because the scenario's own stated tolerance for total data loss (regeneratable data) is the exact condition the chapter names as the one situation where RAID 0's real weakness stops mattering, rather than recommending it purely for speed without addressing the reliability tradeoff.