From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: RAID5 with two drive sizes question Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:59:50 +0600 Message-ID: <20120606015950.585d5454@natsu> References: <4FCE4199.7030705@gmx.net> <20120605233953.2086cc4c@natsu> <4FCE60F3.4040606@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/UcDvXQSRFYhldpstcLKfFVe"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FCE60F3.4040606@gmx.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Joachim Otahal (privat)" Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/UcDvXQSRFYhldpstcLKfFVe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:41:39 +0200 "Joachim Otahal (privat)" wrote: > Use only 750GB partitions, use the 3*250 GB loss at the end of each 1 TB= =20 > drive for the fourth 750 GB, and RAID6 those 8*750. Result is 4.5 TB=20 > with a one-drive-loss tolerance and really bad performance. > I spare you the 500 GB partitions example which result in 4.5 TB with a=20 > one-drive-loss tolerance and really bad performance. Except this would not make any sense even as a thought experiment. You don't want a configuration where two or more areas of the same physical disk need= to be accessed in parallel for any read or write to the volume. And it's pretty easy to avoid that. --=20 With respect, Roman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Stallman had a printer, with code he could not see. So he began to tinker, and set the software free." --Sig_/UcDvXQSRFYhldpstcLKfFVe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/OZTYACgkQTLKSvz+PZwibxwCglEQgWxF1kvc5x4eq1YFBZmJe LHUAniRueXLbbz0oy2P1tKI71+FUHXAY =Mbfk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/UcDvXQSRFYhldpstcLKfFVe--