Chris Murphy <lists <at> colorremedies.com> writes: > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Vlad Dobrotescu <vlad <at> dobrotescu.ca> > wrote: > > > > Since it seems you have a very healthy view of real-world RAID, > > could you point out any significant issues when using a disk as > > a degraded md RAID1 (not accidental, but on purpose)? > > Intentionally degraded raid1 seems oxymoronic to me. Like fat free > ice cream. Uptime/data availability is the purpose of RAID, not > backup. It sounds like a member drive is being used as a shelf or > offsite backup, with periodic catch-up resyncing. If it's an n way > mirror with 3 drives, two left connected, one off-site, then while > technically degraded you could still lose one drive and have uptime > and a backup. But I still think that's the wrong way to do it — > this is probably more of a philosophical argument than a technical > one. > > Chris Murphy As mentioned in my original message, this would be a setup that can accomodate "hot-replace" (without a full resync) before this feature becomes available in mdadm 3.3.x ... Vlad -- 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
