Giovanni Tessore wrote:
RAID-5 unfortunately is inherently insecure, here is why:
If one drive gets kicked, MD starts recovering to a spare.
At that point any single read error during the regeneration (that's a
scrub) will fail the array.
This is a problem that cannot be overcome in theory.
Yes, I was just getting the same conclusion :-(
Suppose you have 2Tb mainstream disks, with a read error ratio of 1
sector each 1E+14 bits = 1.25E+13 bytes.
It means that you likely get an error every 6.25 times you read the
whole disk!
So in case of failure of a disk, you have 1 possibility over 6 to fail
the array during recostruction.
Simply unacceptable!
I looked at specs of some enterprise disks, and the read error ratio for
them is 1 sector each 1E+15 or each 1E+16. Better but still risky.
Ok.. I'll definitely move to raid-6.
Also raid-1 with less than 3 disks becomes useless the same way :-(
Idem for raid-10 ...wow
Well, these two threads on read errors came out as kinda instructive ...
doh!!
Regards
The manufacturer error numbers don't mean much, typically good disks
won't fail a rebuild that often, I have done alot of rebuilds and read
errors during a rebuild are fairly rare, especially if you are doing
proper patrol reads/scans of the raid arrays, if you have disks
setting for long periods of time without read scans, then all bets are
off and you will have issues.
I have never seen a properly good disk that gets that high of error
rate actually exposed to the OS. I have dealt with >5000 disk for
several years of history on the 5000+ disks.
I have seen a few manufacturer "lots" of disks that had seriously high
error rates (certain sizes and certain manufacture ranges), in one set
of disks (2000 desktop drives, and 600 "enterprise" drives) the
desktop drives were almost perfect (same company as the "enterprise"
disks, <10 replaced after 2 years, out of the 600 "enterprise" disks
we had replaced about 50 (read errors) when we finally got the
manufacture send a engineer on-site to validate what was happening and
RMA the entire lot (all 550 disk that had not yet been replaced).
Nothing in the error rate indicated that behavior, so if you get a bad
lot it will be very bad, if you don't get a bad lot you very likely
won't have issues. Now including the bad lots data into the overall
error rate, may result in the error rate being that high, but you luck
will depend on if you have a good or bad lot.
--
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
