Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Francois Barre wrote:
2006/2/17, Gordon Henderson <gordon@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, berk walker wrote:
RAID-6 *will* give you your required 2-drive redundancy.
Anyway, if you wish to resize your setup to 5 drives one day or
another, I guess raid 6 would be preferable, because one day or
another, a patch will popup and make raid6 resizing possible. Or won't
it ?
Resizing isn't something I really care for. This particular box will be
sent away to a data centre where it'll stay for 3 years until I replace
it.
(And if I really do need more disk space in the meantime, I'll just build
another :)
Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand
(any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times
now, I'm begining to think it can't (unless you are lucky!) So maybe I'll
just stick with Raid-6 as I know that!
With only four drives you can just do the possible failure cases, there
are only six... when any one drive fails you can only survive the
failure of two of the three remaining drives, not what you wanted. How
reliable do you NEED here is the real question.
It isn't too hard to make the drives more reliable than the case they're
in, how many fans and power supplies can you survive losing?
--
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
