From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: [PATCH md 2 of 4] Fix raid6 problem Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 02:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <38038.212.158.231.74.1099526180.squirrel@mail.fsck.co.uk> <200412090021.iB90L4MK014200@terminus.zytor.com> <33023.212.158.231.74.1106488921.squirrel@mail.fsck.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Followup to: <33023.212.158.231.74.1106488921.squirrel@mail.fsck.co.uk> By author: "A. James Lewis" In newsgroup: linux.dev.raid > > > Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been using RAID6 in a real life > situation with 2.6.9 + patch, for 2 months now, with 1.15Tb of storage, > and I have had more than 1 drive failure... as well as some rather > embarasing hardware corruption which I traced to a faulty IDE controller. > > Dispite some random DMA corrupion, and loosing a total of 3 disks, I have > not had any problems with it RAID6 itself, and really it has litereally > saved my data from being lost. > > I ran a diff against the 2.6.9 patch and what is in 2.6.10... and they are > not the same, presumably a more elegant fix has been implimented for the > production kernel?? > I think there are some other (generic) fixes in there too. Anyway... I'm thinking of sending in a patch to take out the "experimental" status of RAID-6. I have been running a 1 TB production server in 1-disk degraded mode for about a month now without incident. -hpa