Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > Farkas Levente <lfarkas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> anyway is there any advantage of a raid6 over raid5+1spare disk? afaik >> raid5 will be faster and use less cpu and both case 2 disk can failed. > > No, raid6 survives the simultaneous failure of two disks. > Raid5 survives the simultaneous failure of one disk only. Even with a > hot-spare, after this failure you have a time frame where the spare is > synching and your array has no redundancy left. Thus, nearly every other > disk failure (except a failure on the synching spare) within this time > frame kills your array. > It's worth noting that a failure mode that is getting increasingly frequently reported is the failure of a drive *during sync*. I suspect that the cause is that synchronization puts different stresses on the drives than normal operation. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
