Well, we've been using assorted versions of the 0.90 raid code for over a
year in a couple of servers. We've had mostly good success with both the
raid1 and raid5 code. I don't have any raid5 disk failure stories (yet
;-), but we are using EIDE drives so I expect one before TOO long ;-)
Raid5 has given us good performance and reliability so far. Now, we do
have a raid1 array that did something interesting (and bad). One of the
drives was failing intermittently (and fairly silently) and had been
removed from the array. Unfortunately, backups were also failing (again,
fairly silently). On a normal power down / reboot, it appears that the
wrong drive was marked as master and on the reboot it re-synced to the
drive that had been out of the array for a couple of months. (yeah, yeah,
we need a sys-admin ;-) Anyway, 2 months of data went down the tubes. No
level of raid is a replacement for good backups.
Keith
P.S. That system was 2.0.0-pre3, I think, with the matching raidtools.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I've got a user in my dept who is thinking about using software raid5
> (after I explained the advantages to them) - but they want "testimonials"
> ie: - people who have used software raid5 under linux and have had it save
> their ass or have had it work correctly and keep them from a costly backup
> restore. IE: success stories. Also I would like to hear some failure
> stories too - sort of horror stories - now the obscure situations I don't
> care about - if you got an axe stuck in your drive by accident and it
> killed the entire array then I feel sorry for you but I don't consider
> that average use.
>
> Can anyone give some testimonials on the 0.90 raid?
> thanks
>
> -sv
>
>
