On Friday 30 September 2011 06:20:42 Tim Connors wrote: > Worst case, if you lose one disk, then rebuild, and during rebuild, > suffer the likely consequence of losing another disk when rebuilding > raid6, you still have a valid array. > Worse case, fairly likely occurence with raid10, lose that second disk and > lose all your data. > Care for your data ==> don't use raid10.
Thats stupid. Raid5: Loose one disk during recovery -> you are screwed. Raid6: Loose two disks during recovery -> you are screwed. Given that fact that most people use the same disks from the same vendor and the same production line (with consecutive serial numbers), the chances to have several disks fail at the same time is very high. For Raid1 and Raid10: Use two lots of disks from different vendors or at least buy them half a year apart. And pair so that always two different kinds are toghether. Then one batch can collectivly jump the cliff while all your data is still intact. And don't argue that disks with consecutive serial numbers won't break together: From the three disk failures I encountered where I had a second of the same type, that second broke shortly after. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
