On 4/5/20 3:50 pm, hitachi303 wrote:
> Am 04.05.2020 um 02:46 schrieb Rich Freeman:
>> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:50 PM hitachi303
>> wrote:
>> ...
> So you are right. This is the way they do it. I used the term raid to
> broadly.
> But still they have problems with limitations. Size of room,
Am 04.05.2020 um 02:46 schrieb Rich Freeman:
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:50 PM hitachi303
wrote:
The only person I know who is running a really huge raid ( I guess 2000+
drives) is comfortable with some spare drives. His raid did fail an can
fail. Data will be lost. Everything important has to
Am 04.05.2020 um 02:29 schrieb Caveman Al Toraboran:
Facebook used to store data which is sometimes accessed on raids. Since
they use energy they stored data which is nearly never accessed on blue
ray disks. I don't know if they still do. Reading is very slow if a
mechanical arm first needs to
On Monday, May 4, 2020 3:19 AM, antlists wrote:
> On 03/05/2020 22:46, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 6:27 PM, Jack ostrof...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> > curious. how do people look at --layout=n2 in the
> > storage industry? e.g. do they ignore the
> > optimistic
On Monday, May 4, 2020 2:50 AM, hitachi303
wrote:
> Am 03.05.2020 um 23:46 schrieb Caveman Al Toraboran:
>
> > so, in summary:
> > /\
> > | a 5-disk RAID10 is better than a 6-disk RAID10 |
> > | ONLY IF your data is WORTH LESS than 3,524.3 |
> > |
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 6:27 PM, Jack wrote:
> Minor point - you have one duplicate line there ". f f ." which is the
> second and last line of the second group. No effect on anything else in
> the discussion.
thanks.
> Trying to help thinking about odd numbers of disks, if you are still
>
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:50 PM hitachi303
wrote:
>
> The only person I know who is running a really huge raid ( I guess 2000+
> drives) is comfortable with some spare drives. His raid did fail an can
> fail. Data will be lost. Everything important has to be stored at a
> secondary location. But
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:52 PM Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:16 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Up until a few weeks ago I would have advised the same, but WD was
> > just caught shipping unadvertised SMR in WD Red disks. This is going
> > to at the very least impact your
On 03/05/2020 22:46, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote:
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 6:27 PM, Jack wrote:
curious. how do people look at --layout=n2 in the
storage industry? e.g. do they ignore the
optimistic case where 2 disk failures can be
recovered, and only assume that it protects for 1
disk
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:16 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 2:29 PM Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> > I've used the WD Reds and WD Golds (no not sold) and never had any
problem.
> >
>
> Up until a few weeks ago I would have advised the same, but WD was
> just caught shipping
Am 03.05.2020 um 23:46 schrieb Caveman Al Toraboran:
so, in summary:
/\
| a 5-disk RAID10 is better than a 6-disk RAID10 |
| ONLY IF your data is WORTH LESS than 3,524.3 |
| bucks. |
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 5:32 PM antlists wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2020 21:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I don't think you should focus so much on whether read=write in your
> > RAID. I'd focus more on whether read and write both meet your
> > requirements.
>
> If you think about it, it's obvious that
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:23 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
> For anything above raid 1, MAKE SURE your drives support SCT/ERC. For
> example, Seagate Barracudas are very popular desktop drives, but I guess
> maybe HALF of the emails asking for help recovering an array on the raid
> list involve them
On 03/05/2020 21:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
I don't think you should focus so much on whether read=write in your
RAID. I'd focus more on whether read and write both meet your
requirements.
If you think about it, it's obvious that raid-1 will read faster than it
writes - it has to write two
On 03/05/2020 18:55, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote:
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:23 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
For anything above raid 1, MAKE SURE your drives support SCT/ERC. For
example, Seagate Barracudas are very popular desktop drives, but I guess
maybe HALF of the emails asking for help recovering
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 2:29 PM Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> I've used the WD Reds and WD Golds (no not sold) and never had any problem.
>
Up until a few weeks ago I would have advised the same, but WD was
just caught shipping unadvertised SMR in WD Red disks. This is going
to at the very least impact
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Caveman Al Toraboran
wrote:
>
> * RAID 1: fails to satisfy points (1) and (3)...
> this leaves me with RAID 10
Two things:
1. RAID 10 doesn't satisfy point 1 (read and write performance are
identical). No RAID implementation I'm aware of does.
2. Some
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:56 AM Caveman Al Toraboran <
toraboracave...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:23 PM, Wols Lists
wrote:
>
> > For anything above raid 1, MAKE SURE your drives support SCT/ERC. For
> > example, Seagate Barracudas are very popular desktop drives, but I
Caveman Al Toraboran wrote:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:23 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
>
>> For anything above raid 1, MAKE SURE your drives support SCT/ERC. For
>> example, Seagate Barracudas are very popular desktop drives, but I guess
>> maybe HALF of the emails asking for help recovering an array on
On 5/3/20 1:44 AM, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote:
[snip]...
so, we get the following combinations of
disk failures that, if happen, we won't
lose any data:
RAID0
--^--
RAID1 RAID1
--^-- --^--
F . . . < cases with
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:14 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
> > Q3: what are the future growth/shrinkage
> > options for a RAID10 setup? e.g. with
> > respect to these:
> >
> > 1. read/write speed.
> >
>
> iirc far is good for speed.
>
> > 2. tolerance guarantee towards failing
> >disks.
>
hi - i'm to setup my 1st RAID, and i'd appreciate
if any of you volunteers some time to share your
valuable experience on this subject.
my scenario
---
0. i don't boot from the RAID.
1. read is as important as write. i don't
have any application-specific scenario that
On 03/05/20 08:53, hitachi303 wrote:
> Nothing you asked but I had very bad experience with drives which spin
> down by themselves to save energy (mostly titled green or so).
Good catch!
For anything above raid 1, MAKE SURE your drives support SCT/ERC. For
example, Seagate Barracudas are very
On 03/05/20 06:44, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote:
> hi - i'm to setup my 1st RAID, and i'd appreciate
> if any of you volunteers some time to share your
> valuable experience on this subject.
>
> my scenario
> ---
>
> 0. i don't boot from the RAID.
>
> 1. read is as important as
Am 03.05.2020 um 07:44 schrieb Caveman Al Toraboran:
* RAIDs 4 to 6: fails to satisfy point (3)
since they are stuck with a fixed tolerance
towards failing disks (i.e. RAIDs 4 and 5
tolerate only 1 disk failure, and RAID 6
tolerates only 2).
As far as I remember
25 matches
Mail list logo
