On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Peter Grandi wrote:
NB: while in general I think that most (euphemism) less informed people should use only RAID10, there are a few narrow cases where the rather skewed performance envelopes of RAID5 and even of RAID6 match workload and budget requirements. But it takes apparently unusual insight to recognize these cases, so just use RAID10 even if you suspect it is one of those narrow cases.
In your whole post you never touched on URE rates (well you did, but you didn't seem to this was a problem).
I'm using RAID6 because I don't really care about performance, but I do want to be able to fail one drive and have scattered URE handled while rebuilding. I have had scattered URE hit me numerous times over the past 10 years. With RAID6 they are handled nicely even with a failed drive.
If I cared about performance, I would either do what was discussed earlier in the thread (use smaller enterprise drives with better BER) in RAID10, or I would use threeway mirror RAID1 and use lvm to vg several RAID1:s together.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
