From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Some very basic questions Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:43:19 +0200 Message-ID: <48FF4A17.80204@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> <48FF3CB9.6070404@redhat.com> <48FF3EB8.6050306@redhat.com> <48FF4082.407@redhat.com> <48FF4302.5030204@redhat.com> <48FF45EE.7010001@redhat.com> <1224689639.6448.72.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: <1224689639.6448.72.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: > One problem with the spare > capacity model is the general trend where drives from the same batch > that get hammered on in the same way tend to die at the same time. Some > shops will sleep better knowing there's a hot spare and that's fine by > me. > How does hot sparing help? All your disks die except the spare. Of course, I've no objection to disk sparing as an additional option; I just feel that capacity sparing is superior. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function