Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> Don't those thingies usually have NV cache or backed by battery such
>> that ORDERED_DRAIN is enough?
>
> All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss,
> it is a promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent
> storage). You don't need t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:39:41 EDT, Ric Wheeler said:
>
>> All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it
>> is a
>> promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You
>> don't
>> need to ask this kind of array to drai
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:39:41 EDT, Ric Wheeler said:
> All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it
> is a
> promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You
> don't
> need to ask this kind of array to drain the cache. In fact, it might jus
> Why do I use RAID6? For the extra redundancy
I've been thinking about RAID6 too, having been bitten a couple of times
the only disadvantage that I can see at the moment is that you can't convert
and grow it... ie... I can't convert from a 4 drive RAID5 array to a 5 drive
RAID6 one when
Tejun Heo wrote:
[ cc'ing Ric Wheeler for storage array thingie. Hi, whole thread is at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.device-mapper.devel/3344 ]
I am actually on the list, just really, really far behind in the thread ;-)
Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but when you consider
