Good point but not an issue here. Have daily offsite cloud incremental backup in the mix here (i.e. forth drive). The array does nothing but receive incremental Bacula archives once a day in the early AM. So there's no moving target data loss potential. At 09:56 AM 11/12/2012 -0800, Drew wrote: >> The third drive will never be on site >> (think about the risk), but that just >> means that the array will grow from >> 2->1 and then from 1->2 instead >> of from 2->3 and 3->2. > >I'd argue your risk from a failing disk during >resync is significantly greater then your risk >of facility failure during the same window. Not >sure what drives are pricing where you are but >adding a forth into the rotation is cheap >insurance. Two for the array, one syncing, one >offsite. > >Some recent blogs ( >http://storagemojo.com/2010/02/27/does-raid-6-stops-working-in-2 >019/ >for example ) suggest that modern drives will >encounter unrecoverable read errors approx every >12TB read. That works out to approx every >6-12 resyncs based on 1-2TB drives. > > >-- >Drew >-- >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 -- 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
