} -----Original Message----- } From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid- } [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Fairbairn } Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:45 PM } To: 'Norman Elton' } Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org } Subject: RE: How many drives are bad? } } } > } > The box presents 48 drives, split across 6 SATA controllers. } > So disks sda-sdh are on one controller, etc. In our } > configuration, I run a RAID5 MD array for each controller, } > then run LVM on top of these to form one large VolGroup. } > } } I might be missing something here, and I realise you'd lose 8 drives to } redundancy rather than 6, but wouldn't it have been better to have 8 } arrays of 6 drives, each array using a single drive from each } controller? That way a single controller failure (assuming no other HD } failures) wouldn't actually take any array down? I do realise that 2 } controller failures at the same time would lose everything.
Wow. Sounds like what I said a few months ago. I think I also recommended RAID6. Guy - 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
