Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >>>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning >>>> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or >>>> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other >>> >>> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6? >> >> It's pathological. There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient options considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two or three SSDs + n-way mirroring. RAID 10. Or RAID 1 + linear + XFS for deterministic workloads. > > Those three examples are simpler, more resilient, easier to configure and maintain, perform better, with faster rebuild times than RAID 6 which also has a high read-modify-write penalty. I left that part out. yes, but RAID6 allows a disk-fault *while* rebuild the RAID after the first one RADID 10 *may* do the same if the *right* second disk fails in real life disks are mostly identical old and in case one fails the chance that anotehr one fails within a short timeframe is high and the rebuild makes it even more likely frankly i saw SAN configurations where after remove 20 disks the system said "if now anotehr one fails *we maybe* have a problem" and in real life the performance penalty is meaningless compared to a complete fail of the array
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
