From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: Use RAID-6! Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:19:15 +0600 Message-ID: <20130417021915.35da6406@natsu> References: <15345091.8.1366130671716.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <516DABF2.5050409@tigertech.com> <516DAF21.5040409@aei.mpg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/iYjRNK1f.dPJ4vITx+.63df"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <516DAF21.5040409@aei.mpg.de> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Carsten Aulbert Cc: Robert L Mathews , Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/iYjRNK1f.dPJ4vITx+.63df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:05:53 +0200 Carsten Aulbert wrote: > The problem I find with RAID1 is that it won't protect you against > silent corruptions (same as RAID5). What do you do if you do a through > check and both drives claim a data block is valid and intact, but data > differs? Do you trust disk1 or disk2? >=20 > In that respect I think RAID1 is a step into the wrong direction :( Then use btrfs RAID1 where every data and metadata block is checksummed and= in case some array member returns blocks with invalid checksums, this is healed from others which still have the correct ones. (Although currently btrfs "RAID1" stores data on *two disks*, no matter how many you have in the array; so it's a bit unconventional). --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/iYjRNK1f.dPJ4vITx+.63df Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFtskMACgkQTLKSvz+PZwhsmACfT6USwe3ZweYLjNHx1+j8gj68 YKoAnjBOM58XGsT3ZaUXyHxY7975ZqFe =hpT/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/iYjRNK1f.dPJ4vITx+.63df--