From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>
Subject: Re: migration of raid 5 to raid 6 and disk of 2TB to 4TB
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:44:03 +0100
Message-ID: <5798BAA3.60108@youngman.org.uk>
References: <CADzS=aqYQEoqxHbp7keeuYqN2dLur1O=RfctfuFsraggxiWTKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <22423.44287.974770.114127@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk>
 <5797C5CE.6020300@youngman.org.uk>
 <CADzS=arvFWy-9_e8L3ngdrYxwGxVNm=zTqoLusvwKmmkUnBfQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <22424.46474.87462.226497@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <22424.46474.87462.226497@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Grandi <pg@lxra2.for.sabi.co.UK>, Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On 27/07/16 14:22, Peter Grandi wrote:
> Also, if the data is just 4.5TB, why not go for just a 3x RAID5
> with the 3x 4TB drives, which a usable capacity of 8TB? A degree
> of redundancy of 1-in-3 is not bad. It would have less IOPS
> though.

The problem is that one of the three new 4TB drives is currently part of
the old - partly failed - array. So without buying a fourth 4TB drive,
that option isn't on the table.

Cheers,
Wol