Brad
Not saying its broke. Part of my reasoning to go to raid5 was that I could expand. While it can be done I don't really see it as practical. Also it's looking like I probably will not need to expand.
raid5 with 3 drives and 1 spare or 2 - 2 drive raid1 drives have the same space. Which is less likely to have a failure cause data loss?
I'm guessing raid1. If I'm wrong I'd like to know now.
Also concerned about the resync times. It was going to take a couple days to resync under a rather light load if it weren't for the fact that it couldn't because of a bad drive and a kernel panic caused by the read error.
Still not certain about the cause of problem my current guess is the sata controller.
I'm glad there is work being done on the resync issue.
Also think the ideas to attempt to fix read errors are great.
My only suggestion is that there should be provision to send notification when it happens.
With both that would really help.
John
Brad Campbell wrote:
John McMonagle wrote:
Was planning to adding a hot spare to my 3 disk raid5 array and was thinking if I go to 4 drives I would be a better off as 2 raid1 arrays considering the current state of raid5.
I just wonder about the comment "considering the current state of raid5". What might be wrong with raid5 currently? I certainly know a number of people (me included) who run several "large" raid-5 arrays and don't have any problems.
Brad
- 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
