From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3E68BC6E.21AB9F6F@silicide.dk> From: Jon Bendtsen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Max storage size per system References: <20030304114851.GA22965@hcsd.de> <3E64B885.1AF49EDA@silicide.dk> <20030304144121.GB23975@hcsd.de> <4857903125.20030305160532@tnonline.net> <20030305194551.GA11043@hcsd.de> <20030306162150.GA11451@gw.silicide.dk> <20030306171539.GA16219@hcsd.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Mar 7 09:37:02 2003 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com Stephan Austermuehle wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:21:50PM +0100, jon+lvm@silicide.dk wrote: > > > hmm, that would need 130T/0.146T = 890 disks. And running raid 5... > > Please have a look at the following links. A single HDS Lightning > (aka HP XP 1024) can address up to 1,024 disks. > > http://www.hp.com/products1/storage/products/disk_arrays/highend/xp1024/index.html > > http://www.hds.com/products/systems/9900v/ nice, imagien all that porn ;-D > > personaly i dont like raid5, because if you loose more than one disk > > your data are gone, and with this ammount of disks, i expect failure > > rather often. (it's proberly not one big raid5 array, but that just > > makes it need more disks). > > I prefer RAID 1 (or RAID 10), too, but sometimes one has to use RAID 5. > A common strategy is to put a higher number of hot spare drives in one > system. Another (somewhat newer) strategy is to use two rotating parity > drives per RAID set. 2 rotating parity disks ? Can you elaborate on how that works ? I have thought about using something else than raid5, where you would split the data across a number of disks, AND use a mirrored device for storing the parity on. JonB