From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263642AbTDTRT4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:19:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263643AbTDTRT4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:19:56 -0400 Received: from siaag1ad.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.6]:39651 "EHLO siaag1ad.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263642AbTDTRTy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:19:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:28:22 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? To: John Bradford Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304201331_MC3-1-3532-FFDB@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> I buy three drives at a time so I have a matching spare, because AFAIC >> you shouldn't be doing RAID on unmatched drives. > > Err, yes you should :-). > > Unless they are spindle syncronised, the advantage of identical > physical layout diminishes, and the disadvantage of quite possibly > getting components from the same, (faulty), batch increases :-). Yeah, I know, and some of my serial numbers are too close together for comfort but I still like everything matched up: hde: MAXTOR 4K060H3, ATA DISK drive hdg: MAXTOR 4K060H3, ATA DISK drive hdi: MAXTOR 4K060H3, ATA DISK drive hde: hde1 hde2 hde3 hde4 < hde5 hde6 hde7 hde8 hde9 > hdg: hdg1 hdg2 hdg3 hdg4 < hdg5 hdg6 hdg7 hdg8 hdg9 > hdi: hdi1 hdi2 hdi3 hdi4 < hdi5 hdi6 hdi7 hdi8 hdi9 > ------ Chuck