RAID 5 was an invention for a time when hard drives were total crap tons of money. The pain of losing a drive in a RAID 5 array is just no longer balanced by the cost of the drives. If a 1TB drive is only $100, it's bluntly dirt cheap now to have a hot spare in a 4 active drive RAID 10 system. The recovery is much easier and faster when checksums don't have to be calculated for every stinking block on the drive(s). <br>
<br>My ideal rig: Striped array for speed composed of mirrored triplets - 2 active, one hot spare per active pair.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Greg Clifton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gccfof5@gmail.com">gccfof5@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Shift in focus to the hardware side of the equation. This thread concentrates on software generated corruption issues, but I have some hardware related questions. First, with RAIDed hard drives, are any file systems more or less likely to cause (or minimize) the likelihood of corruption of the array and if so, why? Second Greg F (and others) have commented on NOT using RAID 5 (and RAID 6) esp. with large hard drives. Looks like 1 or 2 TB hard drives will soon be "standard issue" for everything but notebook computers. So does that mean that RAID should be considered 'dead,' except for 0, 1, 10? Third, would SSDs solve the failure from bad sector issues with HDDs and thus be safe for RAID 5/6 implementations?<div>
<div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Ed Cashin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ecashin@noserose.net" target="_blank">ecashin@noserose.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Doug McNash <<a href="mailto:dmcnash@charter.net" target="_blank">dmcnash@charter.net</a>> wrote:<br>
...<br>
<div>> Does anyone out there use xfs? How about a suggestion for a stable replacement.<br>
<br>
</div>If you use the xfs in the mainline kernel, it's a crap shoot because<br>
of the amount of churn in the code, but<br>
if you use a long-term kernel like 2.6.16.y, 2.6.27.y, or the kernels<br>
maintained by distros, then it ought to be stable (as long as the<br>
distro has enough of a user base for other people to find the xfs<br>
bugs first).<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Ed Cashin <<a href="mailto:ecashin@noserose.net" target="_blank">ecashin@noserose.net</a>><br>
<a href="http://noserose.net/e/" target="_blank">http://noserose.net/e/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.coraid.com/" target="_blank">http://www.coraid.com/</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org" target="_blank">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><input type="hidden"><input type="hidden"><div></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness <br><br>