On Mar 9, 2011, at 3:35 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.
I had it happen on a Dell server with hardware raid 5...only discovered it when a not-silent failure on another drive had us replace the bad disk then attempt a rebuild. Since then I've had a hard lesson on today's drive densities and manufacturing tolerances for bad sectors...ended up doing a total wipe and restore of the volume._______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
