Merge pull request #3391 from MicrosoftDocs/main638660952690599468sync_temp

For protected branch, push strategy should use PR and merge to target branch method to work around git push error

Author: learn-build-service-prod[bot]

azure-stack/hci/concepts/plan-volumes.md

@@ -77,13 +77,13 @@ Dual parity provides the same fault tolerance as three-way mirroring but with be
 
 :::image type="content" source="media/plan-volumes/dual-parity.png" alt-text="Diagram shows two volumes labeled data and two labeled parity connected by circular arrows with each volume associated with a server containing physical disks." lightbox="media/plan-volumes/dual-parity.png":::
 
-Which resiliency type to use depends on the needs of your workload. Here's a table that summarizes which workloads are a good fit for each resiliency type, and the performance and storage efficiency of each resiliency type.
+Which resiliency type to use depends on the performance and capacity requirements for your environment. Here's a table that summarizes the performance and storage efficiency of each resiliency type.
 
-| Resiliency type | Capacity efficiency | Speed | Workloads |
-| ------------------- | ----------------------  | --------- | ------------- |
-| **Mirror**         | ![Storage efficiency showing 33%](media/plan-volumes/3-way-mirror-storage-efficiency.png)<br>Three-way mirror: 33% <br>Two-way-mirror: 50%     |![Performance showing 100%](media/plan-volumes/three-way-mirror-perf.png)<br> Highest performance  | Virtualized workloads<br> Databases<br>Other high performance workloads |
-| **Mirror-accelerated parity** |![Storage efficiency showing around 50%](media/plan-volumes/mirror-accelerated-parity-storage-efficiency.png)<br> Depends on proportion of mirror and parity | ![Performance showing around 20%](media/plan-volumes/mirror-accelerated-parity-perf.png)<br>Much slower than mirror, but up to twice as fast as dual-parity<br> Best for large sequential writes and reads | Archival and backup<br> Virtualized desktop infrastructure     |
-| **Dual-parity**               | ![Storage efficiency showing around 80%](media/plan-volumes/dual-parity-storage-efficiency.png)<br>4 servers: 50% <br>16 servers: up to 80% | ![Performance showing around 10%](media/plan-volumes/dual-parity-perf.png)<br>Highest I/O latency & CPU usage on writes<br> Best for large sequential writes and reads | Archival and backup<br> Virtualized desktop infrastructure  |
+| Resiliency type | Capacity efficiency | Speed | 
+| ------------------- | ----------------------  | --------- | 
+| **Mirror**         | ![Storage efficiency showing 33%](media/plan-volumes/3-way-mirror-storage-efficiency.png)<br>Three-way mirror: 33% <br>Two-way-mirror: 50%     |![Performance showing 100%](media/plan-volumes/three-way-mirror-perf.png)<br> Highest performance  |
+| **Mirror-accelerated parity** |![Storage efficiency showing around 50%](media/plan-volumes/mirror-accelerated-parity-storage-efficiency.png)<br> Depends on proportion of mirror and parity | ![Performance showing around 20%](media/plan-volumes/mirror-accelerated-parity-perf.png)<br>Much slower than mirror, but up to twice as fast as dual-parity<br> Best for large sequential writes and reads |
+| **Dual-parity**               | ![Storage efficiency showing around 80%](media/plan-volumes/dual-parity-storage-efficiency.png)<br>4 servers: 50% <br>16 servers: up to 80% | ![Performance showing around 10%](media/plan-volumes/dual-parity-perf.png)<br>Highest I/O latency & CPU usage on writes<br> Best for large sequential writes and reads |
 
 #### When performance matters most