On 2 February 2011 14:21, <hansbkk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Roman Mamedov <rm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> I have a RAID5 setup with 15 drives. >> >> Looks like you got the problem you were so desperately asking for, with this >> crazy setup. :( > > Please give some more details as to what's so crazy about this. > > I would think RAID6 would have made more sense, possibly with an > additional spare if these are large drives (over a few hundred GB?) > > Or is there an upper limit as to the number of drives that's advisable > for any array? > > If so, then what do people reckon a reasonable limit should be for a > RAID6 made up of 2TB drives? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at Âhttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > With 15 drives, where only 1 can fail (RAID5) without data loss.. it's a quite high risk that 2 (or more) drives will fail within a short period of time. If you have less drives, this chance decreases. For large amount of drives I recommend RAID10 personally (or RAID1+0, whichever you prefer). RAID6 + 1 hot spare is also nice, and cheaper. (for ~10 drives) // Mathias -- 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
