From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Stromberg Subject: Re: RAID 5 of RAID 5's? Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:43:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1118436219.25226.252.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu> References: <1118187572.15459.96.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu> <42A93D30.6080900@apartia.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-CMFgK4IKg7BQMC1vU67e" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42A93D30.6080900@apartia.fr> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Laurent CARON Cc: strombrg@dcs.nac.uci.edu, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --=-CMFgK4IKg7BQMC1vU67e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 09:11 +0200, Laurent CARON wrote: > Dan Stromberg a =E9crit : >=20 > >Has anyone constructed a RAID 5 of RAID 5's using mdadm on a linux > >system? > > > >Was it reliable? > > > >How large was it? > > > >Thanks! > > > > =20 > > > Seems to be a large waste of space.... Consider: You have a bunch of "bricks" that can shuffle data between a NAS head and a bunch of disks. The disks are RAID'd (through the "bricks"), but if one of the bricks themselves dies, you're kinda stuck. But if you RAID 5 the RAID 5's, then you don't end up with massive parity pounding, and your bricks aren't a single point of failure, and you don't lose as much space as if you mirrored. Sound copacetic? Thanks for your feedback! --=-CMFgK4IKg7BQMC1vU67e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCqft7o0feVm00f/8RAj8AAJ4ncBYn58pB4FbEwz89YU405wJ8gwCdF1rX m9MOqal0dwYXInjAHRezkJA= =s+Vz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-CMFgK4IKg7BQMC1vU67e--