On Mar 9, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 1:35 PM, objectwerks inc wrote: > >>>> The integrity of the data with files after any issues such as these may be >>>> suspect, especially if the fileystem was on a RAID5 which is very well >>>> known for silent data corruption. This is why RAID5 should not be used. >>> >>> OK that's possibly a whole separate thread for qualifying such a statement. >>> Apple has a supported product that uses RAID 5. I have clients with them >>> and they've lost drives, and no data, and no data corruption. And an even >>> larger sample size exists if filesystems other than jhfs+ are considered. >>> RAID 5/6 are common with ext3, ext4, XFS and other file systems without >>> anyone suggesting RAID 5 in particular is known for itself increasing the >>> incidence of silent data corruption. >>> >> >> >> There is a reason why it is called silent data corruption. They may not >> know they have it. It happens all the time and with HW raid 5 you may not >> even know it for a long time. >> >> This is the whole reason why ZFS was made. > > ZFS was not made for combating this claim of RAID 5 specific silent data > corruption, but rather silent data corruption in general.
http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
