From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: SMART, RAID and real world experience of failures. Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:37:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4F0B17BF.3020507@turmel.org> References: <4F063808.6040000@crc.id.au> <20230.55643.346235.891308@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> <4F06DDAC.1050501@crc.id.au> <4F06F969.1010205@turmel.org> <20234.65226.464692.42166@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20234.65226.464692.42166@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Grandi Cc: Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 01/09/2012 09:50 AM, Peter Grandi wrote: >>>> I got a SMART error email yesterday from my home server with a 4 >>>> x 1Tb RAID6. [ ... ] > >>>> That's an (euphemism alert) imaginative setup. Why not a 4 >>>> drive RAID10? In general there are vanishingly few cases in >>>> which RAID6 makes sense, and in the 4 drive case a RAID10 >>>> makes even more sense than usual. Especially with the really >>>> cool setup options that MD RAID10 offers. > >> In this case, the raid6 can suffer the loss of any two drives >> and continue operating. Raid10 cannot, unless you give up >> more space for triple redundancy. > > When I see arguments like this I am sometimes (euphemism alert) > enthused by their (euphemism alert) profundity. A defense of a > 4-drive RAID6 is a particularly compelling example, and this > type of (euphemism alert) astute observation even more so. << plonk >>