From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Some very basic questions Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:40:28 +0200 Message-ID: <48FF3B5C.8000908@redhat.com> References: <20081021132322.271ad728.skraw@ithnet.com> <48FDD710.5050702@hp.com> <20081021190136.89b2c6af.skraw@ithnet.com> <20081021171513.GA8799@infradead.org> <48FE11F9.7040700@gmail.com> <20081022142759.ac33a16c.skraw@ithnet.com> <1224681345.6448.4.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <48FF2A5B.80108@redhat.com> <48FF396B.1020700@redhat.com> <1224686215.6448.49.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Ric Wheeler , Stephan von Krawczynski , Christoph Hellwig , jim owens , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1224686215.6448.49.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: >> You want to have spare capacity, enough for one or two (or fifteen) >> drives' worth of data. When a drive goes bad, you rebuild into the >> spare capacity you have. >> >> > > You want spare capacity that does not degrade your raid levels if you > move the data onto it. In some configs, this will be a hot spare, in > others it'll just be free space. > What kind of configuration would prefer a spare disk to spare capacity? RAID6 with a small number of disks? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function