From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263470AbTDCTBR (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:01:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263472AbTDCTBQ (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:01:16 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-120-100-11.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net ([66.120.100.11]:14854 "HELO glacier.arctrix.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263470AbTDCTBC (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:01:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:13:12 -0800 From: Neil Schemenauer To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID 5 performance problems Message-ID: <20030403191311.GA9406@glacier.arctrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ross Vandegrift wrote: > Absolutely correct - you should *never* run IDE RAID on a channel that > has both a master and slave. When one disk on an IDE channel has an > error, the whole channel is reset - this makes both disks > inaccessible, > and RAID5 now has two failed disks => you data is gone! *ALWAYS* use > separate IDE channels. I think it's okay to use both channels if you use RAID0+1 (also known as RAID10), just be sure to mirror across channels. As a bonus, RAID0+1 is significantly faster than RAID5. Neil