From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: Recovering an Array with inconsistent Superblocks Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 14:16:06 -0500 Message-ID: <52C85DF6.5050608@turmel.org> References: <1388829881.16265.20.camel@vessel> <52C835C9.3050707@turmel.org> <52C84BF2.5030503@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52C84BF2.5030503@gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Can Jeuleers , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 01/04/2014 12:59 PM, Can Jeuleers wrote: > On 01/04/2014 05:24 PM, Phil Turmel wrote: >> Side note: If you have a live spare available for a raid5, there's no >> good reason not to reshape to a raid6, and very good reasons to do so. > > I used to have a setup like that (i.e. RAID5 + spare), and my reason was > power consumption and heat dissipation, since the spare was spun down. Ok. I can understand that. It wouldn't meet *my* definition of a "good" reason, though. Phil