From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: berk walker Subject: Re: raid5 or raid6 and the maximum size Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:28:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4332DBCA.2090607@panix.com> References: <4332AD95.1080904@bppiac.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4332AD95.1080904@bppiac.hu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Farkas Levente Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Farkas Levente wrote: > hi, > i'd like to know the current state of the raid6 driver. we are now > switching one of our server from 8 x 200GB to 8 x 300GB(or 400GB). > so which is the better if we use: > - 7 x 300GB in raid5 and one 300GB spare or > - 8 x 300GB in raid6? > it seems the same to me since both case we can get two disk faild and > the same capacity. so why we choose raid6 over raid5 (when raid5 seems > to be more stable then raid6)? > another question is there any upper limit for one raid5(6) partition? > i read 1TB and 2TB too (although we already have a raid5 which is > larger then 1TB). these are still real limit? or what is the current > limit? > thank you for your help in advance. > yours. > With RAID5 and a spare, if another, rarely or never used area is found to be bad on rebuild, your spare is of no use, and without heroic measures, all is lost. RAID6 can handle that scenario. b-