On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:40:39AM -0800, Derek Vadala wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Marcel wrote:
>
...
> It also strikes me that even in a typical RAID-10, with two disks per
> mirror, you only risk losing the array if any mirror incurs a second disk
> failure during reconstruction. With a smart hot spare arrangement, and
> disks that are well distributed among controllers, the risk is extremely
> small. But, I suspect that even minimal risk is too great for some of you.
Just for the record: I have a box here with a four-disk RAID-1. (It can
sustain any three disk failures).
However, when the power supply decides that "hey, I think these disks need
400V", I will still be restoring from backup. Or when someone drops the
box 2 meters to the floor with the disks spinning... Or...
<paranoia mode="on">
I suppose I could connect some of the disks via. FC to a remote disk enclosure
on another UPS (or powered with a diesel generator). Hmm... Wonder if the
fibres will reach that bank-safe in the company bunker in Switzerland... Oh,
and then I will need an FC adapter and a disk that will do 512 bit AES in
hardware.
</paranoia>
Morale: Use RAID but Keep Good Backups.
-----------------
Unlike RAID, a backup will let you recover (minus one days work) from both
administrative/user disasters (rm -rf, mke2fs, dd, ...), and the physical ones.
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
