2016-05-20 16:38 GMT+08:00 Andreas Klauer <Andreas.Klauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > The question is whether you really want that many disks in a single array. > > After all, the more disks, the more likely you have more than one disk fail, > due to various causes (not just the disk itself, also cable problems, etc.) > Do you test your disks regularly? md raid checks, smart self tests, do you > actually replace them when they start reallocating sectors, ...? > > Do you want everything to be gone when the raid fails or just half? ;) > > I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with more than ~24 disks in a raid6. > >> in the future, maybe add another 20 disks into the array > > If you have 20 disks now you could create a 20 disk raid6 now; > if you add 20 disks later you can choose... grow by 20? or just > create another 20 disk raid set. I think I'd go for the latter. > > But it's a personal choice. You have to make it yourself. > Just make sure you have good monitoring for your disks, > if you don't detect disk errors early, raid redundancy might not save you. > > Regards > Andreas Klauer If I use LSI raid card, I would use 16 or 24 disks in a raid6 set, since the limit is 32. but I would like to know if there are other thoughts when using software raid.. thanks for the suggestion :) Regards, tbskyd -- 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
