On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 16:46 -0700, Mike Hardy wrote: > Not sure about the size limits per se > (http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html has good info there) Thanks for the link. > I can say that with a very large number of disks, you will hit > single-block read errors quite frequently due to the nature of the math > behind MTBF. This will lead to frequent drive expulsion / rebuild > cycles, as discussed in another thread today. Say with 210 SATA's, for example? Would I be replacing disks every day or something? > In another question (you could post them all as one mail, > incidentally...) True, but I've been hypothesizing that sometimes folks are reluctant to: 1) Wade all the way through a long series of questions 2) Respond to a message if they don't have the answers to all questions > you asked if it was stable. The only evidence appears > to be anecdotal, but it appears extremely stable to me, even under very > heavy testing - normal new machine cpu/network/ram burn-in tests, > combined with multiple bonnie++ processes hitting the array. Any > problems I've had have been attributable to hardware or hardware drivers > thus far. Good to know. > There have been problems (like the recent set of looping-resync issues > for instance), but I don't remember hearing any that resulted in data > loss, and they get fixed quickly. Serious problems still leave you with > your data on a set of disks in a known format, which means that it may > be laborious but you can reconstruct. So it "degrades" more gracefully > than the black box that are some hardware raid systems. OK. > It takes care to run well and safely though, as with any machine. Yes, I'm expecting that. Thanks! - 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
