From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH md 2 of 4] Fix raid6 problem Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:07:28 -0800 Message-ID: <42026860.1000409@zytor.com> References: <200502031743.j13Hha910546@www.watkins-home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200502031743.j13Hha910546@www.watkins-home.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guy Cc: 'Ruth Ivimey-Cook' , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Guy wrote: > Would you say that the 2.6 Kernel is suitable for storing mission-critical > data, then? Sure. I'd trust 2.6 over 2.4 at this point. > I ask because I have read about a lot of problems with data corruption and > oops on this list and the SCSI list. But in most or all cases the 2.4 > Kernel does not have the same problem. I haven't seen any problems like that, including on kernel.org, which is definitely a high demand site. > Who out there has a RAID6 array that they believe is stable and safe? > And please give some details about the array. Number of disks, sizes, LVM, > FS, SCSI, ATA and anything else you can think of? Also, details about any > disk failures and how well recovery went? The one I have is a 6-disk ATA array (6x250 GB), ext3. Had one disk failure which hasn't been replaced yet; it's successfully running in 1-disk degraded mode. I'll let other people speak for themselves. -hpa