On Saturday 24 July 2004 01:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I'm considering removing the "experimental" label from RAID-6. It > appears at this point to be just as stable as RAID-5 (since it's based > on RAID-5 code that's obviously all that can be expected.) This encouraged me to try it today... > Thus, if you have used RAID-6 and have good or bad experiences, I'd > like to know them as soon as possible. I'm still early in the testing phase, so nothing to report as yet. But I have a question: I tried to reproduce a reported issue when creating a degraded raid6 array. But when I created a raid6 array with one disk missing, /proc/mdstat reported no resync going on. Am I not correct in assuming that raid6 with 1 missing drive should at least start resyncing the other drive(s) ? It would only be really degraded with two missing drives... So instead, I defined a full raid6 array which it is now resyncing... My resync speed is rather slow (6000K/sec). I'll have to compare it to resyncing a raid5 array though before concluding anything from that. Cause this system is somewhat CPU challenged indeed: a lowly celeron 500. I will try to run some script(s) provided on this list to see if I can reproduce anything. System info: SuSE 9.1 from DVD media, (with all updates installed _PRIOR_ to creating the array) Kernel 2.6.5-7.95 mdadm - v1.5.0 - 22 Jan 2004 Harddisks and/or controllers: one 160 GB ATA off the onboard controller (hda) two 160GB SATA off a promise 150TX2 (as sda and sdb) two 160 GB SATA off a SiI 3112 controller (as hde and hdg) Maarten -- When I answered where I wanted to go today, they just hung up -- Unknown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
