Kyle McDonald writes:
Ross wrote:
Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a
raid-z / raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10
chance of loosing some data during a full rebuild.
Actually, I think it's been
I've read various articles along those lines. My understanding is that a 500GB
odd raid-z / raid-5 array has around a 1 in 10 chance of loosing at least some
data during a rebuild.
I'd have raid-5 arrays fail at least 4 times, twice during a rebuild. In most
cases I've been able to recover
Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a raid-z
/ raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10 chance of
loosing some data during a full rebuild.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Ross wrote:
Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a
raid-z / raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10
chance of loosing some data during a full rebuild.
Actually, I think it's been explained already why this is actually one
Anyone here read the article Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009 at
http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162
Does RAIDZ have the same chance of unrecoverable read error as RAID5 in Linux
if the RAID has to be rebuilt because of a faulty disk? I imagine so because
of the physical constraints that
My take is that since RAID-Z creates a stripe for every block
(http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z), it should be able to
rebuild the bad sectors on a per block basis. I'd assume that the
likelihood of having bad sectors on the same places of all the disks
is pretty low since we're only
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Aaron Blew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My take is that since RAID-Z creates a stripe for every block
(http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z), it should be able to
rebuild the bad sectors on a per block basis. I'd assume that the
likelihood of having bad
