Hi!
> > Well, you could set stripe size to 512B; that way, RAID-5 would be
> > *very* slow, but it should have same characteristics as normal disc
> > w.r.t. crash. Unrelated data would not be lost, and you'd either get
> > old data or new data...
>
> When you lose a disk during recovery you can
> Well, you could set stripe size to 512B; that way, RAID-5 would be
> *very* slow, but it should have same characteristics as normal disc
> w.r.t. crash. Unrelated data would not be lost, and you'd either get
> old data or new data...
When you lose a disk during recovery you can still lose
Hi!
> > The nasty part there is that it can affect completely unrelated
> > data too (on a traditional disk you normally only lose the data
> > that is currently being written) because of of the relationship
> > between stripes on different disks.
Well, you could set stripe size to 512B; that
Hi!
The nasty part there is that it can affect completely unrelated
data too (on a traditional disk you normally only lose the data
that is currently being written) because of of the relationship
between stripes on different disks.
Well, you could set stripe size to 512B; that way,
Well, you could set stripe size to 512B; that way, RAID-5 would be
*very* slow, but it should have same characteristics as normal disc
w.r.t. crash. Unrelated data would not be lost, and you'd either get
old data or new data...
When you lose a disk during recovery you can still lose
unrelated
Hi!
Well, you could set stripe size to 512B; that way, RAID-5 would be
*very* slow, but it should have same characteristics as normal disc
w.r.t. crash. Unrelated data would not be lost, and you'd either get
old data or new data...
When you lose a disk during recovery you can still
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The nasty part there is that it can affect completely unrelated
> data too (on a traditional disk you normally only lose the data
> that is currently being written) because of of the relationship
> between stripes on
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree. When not working in degraded mode, it's absolutely reasonable
> > to e.g. use only the non-parity data. A crash with raid5 is in no way
>
> Yep. But when you go into degraded mode during the crash
> I disagree. When not working in degraded mode, it's absolutely reasonable
> to e.g. use only the non-parity data. A crash with raid5 is in no way
Yep. But when you go into degraded mode during the crash recovery
(before the RAID is fully synced again) you lose.
> different to a crash without
I disagree. When not working in degraded mode, it's absolutely reasonable
to e.g. use only the non-parity data. A crash with raid5 is in no way
Yep. But when you go into degraded mode during the crash recovery
(before the RAID is fully synced again) you lose.
different to a crash without
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. When not working in degraded mode, it's absolutely reasonable
to e.g. use only the non-parity data. A crash with raid5 is in no way
Yep. But when you go into degraded mode during the crash recovery
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The nasty part there is that it can affect completely unrelated
data too (on a traditional disk you normally only lose the data
that is currently being written) because of of the relationship
between stripes on
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:11:34AM +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > The summary seems to be that the linux raid driver only protects your data
> > as long as all disks are fine and the machine never crashes.
>
> "as long as the
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:11:34AM +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The summary seems to be that the linux raid driver only protects your data
> > as long as all disks are fine and the machine never crashes.
>
> "as long as the machine
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The summary seems to be that the linux raid driver only protects your data
> as long as all disks are fine and the machine never crashes.
"as long as the machine never crashes". That's correct. If you think
about how RAID 5 works there is no way around
Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The summary seems to be that the linux raid driver only protects your data
as long as all disks are fine and the machine never crashes.
as long as the machine never crashes. That's correct. If you think
about how RAID 5 works there is no way around it.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:11:34AM +0100, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The summary seems to be that the linux raid driver only protects your data
as long as all disks are fine and the machine never crashes.
as long as the machine never crashes.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:11:34AM +0100, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The summary seems to be that the linux raid driver only protects your data
as long as all disks are fine and the machine never crashes.
as long as the machine never
18 matches
Mail list logo
