From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hansbkk@gmail.com Subject: Re: Network-based RAID6 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:59:45 +0700 Message-ID: References: <20110330131157.49fd2521@natsu> <20110330144944.3c87185c@natsu> <4D933188.30003@hardwarefreak.com> <20110330235052.3a803d35@natsu> <4D94097A.3030909@hardwarefreak.com> <20110331111613.06079a0a@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110331111613.06079a0a@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Mamedov Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:56:26 -0500 > I thought DRBD presents just a regular kernel-level block device in /dev, and > seeing how one can create mdraid out of just any kind of block device, > including those provided by AoE, iSCSI, LVM, dmcrypt or even 'loop', are you > really sure this matters here? The only advantage of RAID5/6 over mirroring is cost savings, certainly not greater fault tolerance taking rebuilding times into account - if you're planning to set up separate whole servers for each component of your redundancy strategy, it seems odd to me you're trying to saving a few bucks on hard drives. DRBD is a well-regarded solution for this application, but it is oriented toward mirroring whole filesystems (usually those of mission-critical servers) that may themselves already be protected locally with RAID. I would advise you follow their standard recommendations at first, don't get too "creative" if you're actually looking for fault-tolerance rather than just experimenting around. All that said, if you're looking for a fun experiment and go ahead, please do document your results and report back here!