If you don't trust the hardware raid, then steer clear of raid-6 as mdadm raid 6 is stupidly slow. I don't completely trust hardware raid either, but rebuild times should be under a day and in order to lose a raid-6 array you have to lose 3 disks. My own systems are hardware raid-6. If you're not terribly worried about maximising usable storage, then mdadm raid-10 is your friend. > On 4 Jul 2016, at 18:15:26, Gandalf Corvotempesta <gandalf.corvotempesta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2016-07-04 17:01 GMT+02:00 Matt Robinson <m.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> Hi Gandalf, >> >> Are you using hardware raid or mdadm? >> On high quality hardware raid, a 12 disk raid-6 is pretty solid. With mdadm any raid6 (especially with 12 disks) will be rubbish. > > I can use both. > I don't like very much hardware raid, even high quality. Recently i'm > having too many issue with hardware raid (like multiple disks kicked > out with no apparent reasons and virtual-disk failed with data loss) > > A RAID-6 with 12x2TB SATA disks would take days to rebuild, in the > meanwhile, multiple disks could fail resulting in data loss. > Yes, gluster is able to recover from this, but I prefere to avoid have > to resync 24TB of data via networks. > > What about a software RAID-1 ? 6 raid for each gluster nodes and 6 > disks wasted but SATA disks are cheaper. _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
