You are not currently logged in. If you do not have a user account then please consider creating one and logging in before you post your comment. This will allow you to track replies to your comment, and take part in the site much more freely.

To add your comment, fill in all the boxes below and then preview it to make sure you're happy with the way that it looks.

This is the comment you were replying to, attached to the article Software RAID5 and LVM with the Etch Installer:

#2 Re: Software RAID5 and LVM with the Etch Installer Posted by cef (59.167.xx.xx) on Thu 22 Mar 2007 at 14:47 I've had a few people comment to me (in person) that RAID 6 seems to have a few bugs still, not with the actual RAID code, but with assembly/maintenance of the array. Things like not being able to assemble an array if one of the disks in the array is faulty, etc, which is a real show-stopper in keeping things going once they are up. That said, I agree that RAID 6 would be a better solution. I would also suggest that you stagger your spares for the RAID set on different drives. eg: For the RAID 1 use sda1, sdb1, sdd1 for active, and sdc1 for the spare, while for the RAID5 using sda2, sdb2 and sdc2 for active, and sdd2 as spare. The reasoning behind this is that if the system gets any decent use, then all disks will be in use regardless, and you won't get "spare" hardware failure on use. As the disk sits idle you really can't be sure that when it's needed to be called into use, it WILL actually be there. This way, as all disks are in use in some way, you'll KNOW when a spare fails (as one of the other active ones will die), and you can replace appropriately. It's no use having a spare if the damn thing fails during a rebuild, which is also around when other drives have a higher chance of failing (dying before, during or after the sustained load/activity of a rebuild). It's probably also good to rotate these occasionally, to cycle the wear about. You might want to be careful with the MD partition containing /boot though, as the bios still tends to load off the first drive it sees, which is a problem if you've demoted it to a spare, and then updated your kernel.

Username:	Anonymous
Title:
Your Comment:
Posting Format:	BBCode HTML Text Plain Text Textile

Inappropriate comments will be removed.

Username:

Password:

[ Advanced Login ]

Register Account