From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maurice Subject: Re: Failed during rebuild (raid5) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 08:48:18 -0600 Message-ID: <51851FB2.6080600@gmail.com> References: <51839E4F.7050102@midgaard.us> <5183A1C7.5000905@mpstor.com> <20130503124023.GB27548@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> <20867.49429.400548.184315@quad.stoffel.home> <5183CF09.1080605@turmel.org> <20867.58492.72376.428170@quad.stoffel.home> <20130503223257.3ec8025c@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130503223257.3ec8025c@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Mamedov Cc: linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 5/3/2013 10:32 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > .. > with the point of this whole change being to pander to stupid and greedy > people (because using RAID5 and not RAID6 with a set-up of six 4 TB drives > is nothing but utter stupidity and greed). More likely is the "cheapness"of using consumer desktop drives, and then acting outraged when they do not act reliably as enterprise drives. Of course the drive manufacturers only make those expensive enterprise drives to extract more money from us, they are really all the same, and it is all one big conspiracy! -- Cheers, Maurice Hilarius eMail: /mhilarius@gmail.com/