Neil Brown wrote:
On Friday August 26, strombrg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've been working on a RAID setup with dual RAID controllers and
three expansion boxes - 48 disks in all, including data, parity and
global spares.
If there are 48 drives, why do your drive-numbers go up to 59?
Confusing but not important.
Presumably these are 360G drives (or there abouts) and you are hoping
to use about 42 for data and the remaining 6 for redundancy.
I feel this a bit tight but could be workable.
If you were using Linux-soft-raid, I would probably suggest 3 16-drive raid6
arrays, possibly making 1 a 15 drive raid6 so there is one global spare.
However I gather you are using hardware RAID - do the controllers
support RAID6 ??
Please be sure to use a fixed-pitch font when viewing the tables found
below. BTW, if people weren't so terrified of HTML, I could just make a
nice HTML table for easy reading without silly font requirements...
You mean some mail readers use variable-width-fonts to display
text/plain? How broken!
Some clients actually do what the user asks in 'preferences' which may
not be fixed fonts...
More to the point, is there a nice widely accepted calculation for
reliability vs. MTBF? I started to develop one but stopped because it
isn't really much use without the S.D. of the MTBF. If drive MTBF is
equal, the better drive (safer) is one with more S.D. rather than a
clustering of failures which somewhat increases the chance of a failure
during rebuild.
The better the quality control the higher the risk of failure clusters,
unfortunately.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
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
