On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:35AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote: > Quoting Nigel Metheringham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > I have to say I am getting less convinced by RAID 1 on systems. > > RAID at all for me, actually. I've seen it crumble down to a grinding > halt several times (using software raid, mdadm, that is). While it was > designed so that a disk could fail without the service being > interrupted, in my experience a disk failing will still make the system > unusable. Either because the kernel goes haywire trying to adress the > non-working device
I used to see this with IDE drives, but have not seen this in the past couple years with sata drives. I think this problem might be history. > or mdadm making decisions causing the entire set to > go offline. > > Especially mdadm setups where you combine RAID-0 and RAID-1 sets to > achieve RAID-10 tend to break when there's problems. > > Still, recovery is easier as the set can rebuild or data can be > retrieved from just one disk from a set... Yeah. Rebuilding a raid-1 array also seems to put much less stress on the surviving drives than rebuilding a raid-5 or 6 array. I've seen multiple disks die during reconstruction of a raid-5 or 6 array on several unhappy occasions. Thanks, Ward. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
