[ale] XFS on Linux - Is it ready for prime time?

[Greg Clifton]

Hey, I'm not great with math, but if you have one hot spare for each active
spare, wouldn't you need mirrored quadruplets?

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).
>
> My ideal rig: Striped array for speed composed of mirrored triplets - 2
> active, one hot spare per active pair.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Greg Clifton <gccfof5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> > Does anyone out there use xfs? How about a suggestion for a stable
>>> replacement.
>>>
>>> If you use the xfs in the mainline kernel, it's a crap shoot because
>>> of the amount of churn in the code, but
>>> if you use a long-term kernel like 2.6.16.y, 2.6.27.y, or the kernels
>>> maintained by distros, then it ought to be stable (as long as the
>>> distro has enough of a user base for other people to find the xfs
>>> bugs first).
>>>
>>> --
>>>  Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net>
>>>  http://noserose.net/e/
>>>  http://www.coraid.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ale mailing list
>>> Ale at ale.org
>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> James P. Kinney III
> Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100422/e4571715/attachment.html