Am 02.12.2017 um 18:12 schrieb Phil Turmel:
RAID-6 is *much* more safe than RAID-1/RAID-10 as it can survive ANY TWO
disks failure,
you will loose data on the third failure.
You (Reindl) are crazy to argue about can-vs-will on a raid10,n2 layout.
You're crazy to rely on any single mirror layout for data you care
about. It is a disaster waiting to happen (during rebuild) in exactly
the same way raid5 is vulnerable during rebuild. But raid10,n3 is just
as safe as raid6
besides that this above is not a quote of me nor makes this quote sense
no, i take all the benefits RAID10 has *anyways* and when you have the
mirrors on different drives.... but that's only *one* minor point for RAID10
probability is always a valid point when you have to make technical
decisions be it how long needs my UPS typically give me power based on
typical power outages, and yes the first one could be longer as anyone
you have ever seen and you still lost
i explained a lot of other benefits of RAID10 so i have no idea why you
hang on one nuance - the most importatnt is that i can clone a fukcing
machine by just put half of the drives in a differnt one and start
rebuild on both machines after that
the whole porblem of that thread in fact his dumb "but you are talking
about SSD" - yes damned - i talk about how i would setup a machine *now*
and how i would have done it many years ago with the knowledge of today
while the 40 GB overprovisioning won't matter for storage size but be
good for the disks (and no i don't need another one whining that it#s
not enough because that's nonsense - there is no definite enough - no
overprovisioning won't make it better at all)
--
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
