Re: RAID6 questions (mdadm 3.2.6/3.3.x)

[Vlad Dobrotescu <vlad@dobrotescu.ca>]

Chris Murphy <lists <at> colorremedies.com> writes:
 >
 > On Jul 12, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Vlad Dobrotescu <vlad <at> dobrotescu.ca>
 > wrote:
 > >
 > > Since it seems you have a very healthy view of real-world RAID,
 > > could you point out any significant issues when using a disk as
 > > a degraded md RAID1 (not accidental, but on purpose)?
 >
 > Intentionally degraded raid1 seems oxymoronic to me. Like fat free
 > ice cream. Uptime/data availability is the purpose of RAID, not
 > backup. It sounds like a member drive is being used as a shelf or
 > offsite backup, with periodic catch-up resyncing. If it's an n way
 > mirror with 3 drives, two left connected, one off-site, then while
 > technically degraded you could still lose one drive and have uptime
 > and a backup. But I still think that's the wrong way to do it —
 > this is probably more of a philosophical argument than a technical
 > one.
 >
 > Chris Murphy

As mentioned in my original message, this would be a setup that can
accomodate "hot-replace" (without a full resync) before this feature
becomes available in mdadm 3.3.x ...

Vlad

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html