On 07/05/2013 09:11 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 09:36 -0400, Phil Turmel wrote: >> You picked "redundancy". Leaves only only one axis to consider: speed >> vs. capacity. > Well thinking about that "raid6check" tool you told me over in the other > thread,... > which AFAIU does what I was talking about, namely telling me which block > is the correct one if I have bad blocks (and the disk itself can't tell) > and not whole drive failures,.. where at least a two-block copy RAID10 > would not be able to... > ...then I think RAID6 is THE solution for me, given resilience has the > highest priority, as RAID10 with c/f/o=3 cannot do that. I think you should read Neil's blog entry before you get too excited about raid6check. You can only trust its decisions when you are confident that the problems it finds are *only* due to silent read errors. MD raid does not carry the per-block metadata needed to distinguish silent read errors from incomplete writes or out-of-band writes to member disks. Hopefully, btrfs will fill this void (eventually). http://neil.brown.name/blog/20100211050355 Phil -- 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
