From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: Resize on dirty array? Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:17:29 +0100 Message-ID: <44DA50E9.5040309@dgreaves.com> References: <44D7DC93.2070905@net1plus.com> <17623.57067.835826.446152@cse.unsw.edu.au> <44D8E535.9080208@net1plus.com> <17625.24594.568139.430440@cse.unsw.edu.au> <44D9C6F5.7070501@net1plus.com> <68c491a60608090437l7e3b583el2214cbe6f01009ab@mail.gmail.com> <44D9E41C.4050608@net1plus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <44D9E41C.4050608@net1plus.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Peverill Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids No, it wasn't *less* reliable than a single drive; you benefited as soon as a James Peverill wrote: > > In this case the raid WAS the backup... however it seems it turned out > to be less reliable than the single disks it was supporting. In the > future I think I'll make sure my disks have varying ages so they don't > fail all at once. > be at the moment. With RAID you then stressed the remaining drives to the point of a second failure (not that you had much choice - you *could* have spent money > James > >>> RAID is no excuse for backups. on enough media to mirror your data whilst you played with your only remaining I can't see where you mention the kernel version you're running? md can perform validation sync's on a periodic basis in later kernels - Debian's mdadm enables this in cron. copy - that's a cost/risk tradeoff you chose not to make. I've made the same choice in the past - I've been lucky - you were not - sorry.) > PS: > - David > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > drive failed. At that point you would have been just as toasted as you may well PS Reorganise lines from distributed reply as you like :) --