From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: RAID 5 - One drive dropped while replacing another Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 19:28:35 +0500 Message-ID: <20110202192835.5d35f2d1@natsu> References: <20110202043605.593f0c5c@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/ujSCqE8p/hSUoPVae74K4Zj"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: hansbkk@gmail.com Cc: Bryan Wintermute , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/ujSCqE8p/hSUoPVae74K4Zj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:21:20 +0700 hansbkk@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > > >> I have a RAID5 setup with 15 drives. > > > > Looks like you got the problem you were so desperately asking for, with > > this crazy setup. :( >=20 > Please give some more details as to what's so crazy about this. >=20 > I would think RAID6 would have made more sense, possibly with an > additional spare if these are large drives (over a few hundred GB?) Exactly, RAID6 would make an order of magnitude more sense. A 15-drive RAID5 array is just one step (one drive failure) from becoming a 14-drive RAID0 array (reliability-wise). Would you also ask "what's wrong with having a 14-drive RAID0"? See the link below for some array failure probability calculations: http://louwrentius.com/blog/2010/08/raid-5-vs-raid-6-or-do-you-care-about-y= our-data/ --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/ujSCqE8p/hSUoPVae74K4Zj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk1JahMACgkQTLKSvz+PZwhonQCfb/xbrZ268z7JUoPL3m91ST0j 4ksAmwQObcXl/Z5qT/vOGv+zQAEQksfN =v4c7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ujSCqE8p/hSUoPVae74K4Zj--