From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: RAID5 recovering Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:30:35 +0600 Message-ID: <20130416143035.43533168@natsu> References: <516C04FB.3030604@inserm.fr> <20130415151939.GA8383@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/Xf+N4ARmUeSnT5lv/uDIMdg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130415151939.GA8383@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Robin Hill Cc: Pierre Martineau , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/Xf+N4ARmUeSnT5lv/uDIMdg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:19:39 +0100 Robin Hill wrote: > Given the rebuild time for a 1To disk, I'd be wary of running RAID5 - if > you have the space, adding another disk and going to RAID6 will be much > safer. As I see it, 3 disks is about the only configuration where RAID5 still does make sense. 4 disks is a tricky spot, RAID5 already feels a bit too dangerous, but RAID6 is still not space-efficient enough. 5-disk (and more) RAID6 is the way to go, but changing from 3 disks to 5 or more is not always justified requirements/cost/space-wise. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/Xf+N4ARmUeSnT5lv/uDIMdg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFtDCsACgkQTLKSvz+PZwhXrACdG5T6LLE9uBtkDjI0cNeiLRHy ItIAn3V7JqANS8ZDlyxvbm882AD512yO =aOa1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Xf+N4ARmUeSnT5lv/uDIMdg--