From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: Considering a complete rework of RAID on my home compute server Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 05:47:54 +0500 Message-ID: <20110106054754.44e7fe1a@natsu> References: <87.68.02631.5E6052D4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/J6S6MIEsDW7IHyo97NFZbNz"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87.68.02631.5E6052D4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: lrhorer@satx.rr.com Cc: 'Mark Knecht' , 'Linux-RAID' List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/J6S6MIEsDW7IHyo97NFZbNz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:03:47 -0600 "Leslie Rhorer" wrote: > RAID1 certainly offers the most robust solution, especially > with more than 1 mirror. > RAID1 is as safe as it gets Are you sure about that? Considering that mdadm's handling of corrupt data = on RAID1 devices is pretty simplistic (obviously it does not have per-block checksums anywhere, it does not do 'voting' on RAID1 with more than 2 devices), it basically has no way of knowing if a block of data is returned differently by some of the component devices, which one has the 'correct' data. From what I understand, RAID5 and especially RAID6 give a much better protection in this situation. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/J6S6MIEsDW7IHyo97NFZbNz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk0lEToACgkQTLKSvz+PZwggywCgkNypaMVg0D0ovbmIbCHgLLrW cJwAnRKJv3rT6GvCBInpF2ur1i62CHj5 =Gdod -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/J6S6MIEsDW7IHyo97NFZbNz--