From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gandalf Corvotempesta <gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: stripe_cache_size, some info
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:13:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJH6TXhOokv1sOQL7KLe==rJQZ6J8D0gscQKJ5MPXSm5ZLXg9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJH6TXhL4=MLanyvQh8UMkBmfkfjPd-frsCOC3PqLnDXCpMetw@mail.gmail.com>
 <58CFFC47.3000306@youngman.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <58CFFC47.3000306@youngman.org.uk>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

2017-03-20 16:59 GMT+01:00 Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>:
> Burst speed, or sustained speed? Big difference ...

Both :)

> And I would avoid that entirely if I can - put the new disk in, do a
> --replace, and then remove the old one. Doing a hotswap like that will
> increase the stress on the array, and increased stress means another
> disk is more likely to fail.

On newer server, i'll tend to avoid using all slots because of this.
With at least 1 slot available, cool things could be done, like
replace disks without compromize redundancy and so on.

But on older server, i don't have enough slot available and the only
way to replace a disk is.... directly replace a disk :)