No, it wasn't *less* reliable than a single drive; you benefited as soon as a James Peverill wrote: > > In this case the raid WAS the backup... however it seems it turned out > to be less reliable than the single disks it was supporting. In the > future I think I'll make sure my disks have varying ages so they don't > fail all at once. > be at the moment. With RAID you then stressed the remaining drives to the point of a second failure (not that you had much choice - you *could* have spent money > James > >>> RAID is no excuse for backups. on enough media to mirror your data whilst you played with your only remaining I can't see where you mention the kernel version you're running? md can perform validation sync's on a periodic basis in later kernels - Debian's mdadm enables this in cron. copy - that's a cost/risk tradeoff you chose not to make. I've made the same choice in the past - I've been lucky - you were not - sorry.) > PS: <ctrl><pgup> > - David > 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 > drive failed. At that point you would have been just as toasted as you may well PS Reorganise lines from distributed reply as you like :) -- - 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
