From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Noll Subject: Re: Why do I need 4 disks for a raid6? Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:35:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20090318123525.GK17185@skl-net.de> References: <87ljr4hsk9.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <20090318121825.GL32416@skl-net.de> <49C0EA5F.9070901@vshift.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V2Kn1ZfDiPlyQ6Qk" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49C0EA5F.9070901@vshift.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ruslan Sivak Cc: Goswin von Brederlow , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --V2Kn1ZfDiPlyQ6Qk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08:34, Ruslan Sivak wrote: > I would guess the reason is that it doesn't make sense. As mentioned, if > you are going to create a 3 disk raid 6, it's essentially a raid1 over 3 > disks, at which point you are better off with the raid-1. I don't think > there's a raid controller that would let you set something like this up, I > don't see why the softraid should. Well, Goswin mentioned some pretty good reasons I think. Andre --=20 The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe --V2Kn1ZfDiPlyQ6Qk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJwOqNWto1QDEAkw8RAugoAJ9QAaEo80QvEpf7RqtO4yVCME6DxwCeIm5p yzc5V+jRkg+5ouMXRRjfwjY= =s9Uu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --V2Kn1ZfDiPlyQ6Qk--