Would you say that the 2.6 Kernel is suitable for storing mission-critical data, then?
I ask because I have read about a lot of problems with data corruption and oops on this list and the SCSI list. But in most or all cases the 2.4 Kernel does not have the same problem. Who out there has a RAID6 array that they believe is stable and safe? And please give some details about the array. Number of disks, sizes, LVM, FS, SCSI, ATA and anything else you can think of? Also, details about any disk failures and how well recovery went? Thanks, Guy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of H. Peter Anvin Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:40 AM To: Ruth Ivimey-Cook Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH md 2 of 4] Fix raid6 problem Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote: > > Would you say that raid-6 is suitable for storing mission-critical data, then? > What I'd say is that I don't have any evidence it's not. Unfortunately, that's not quite the same thing. > I have a .5TB raid5 array on 5 IDE disks, and given what has been said recently > about disk MTBF's and RAID failure recovery, I'm thinking it might be best to > switch to raid-6. > > I guess such a switch is best implemented as {make backup, reformat, restore}, > if I went ahead? Yes, right now there is no RAID5->RAID6 conversion tool that I know of. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
