User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Ext3 and RAID: silent data killers?

Ext3 and RAID: silent data killers?

Posted Sep 1, 2009 8:05 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: Ext3 and RAID: silent data killers? by job
Parent article: Ext3 and RAID: silent data killers?

Well as single fault can destroy any data if you want to look at it that way... But generally with one drive gone either Raid 6 or Raid 10 should still be adequate.

With RAID 5 the amount of time it takes to recover is so long nowadays that the chances of having a double fault is pretty good. It was one thing to have 20GB with 30MB/s performance, but it's quite another to have 1000GB with 50MB/s performance...


(Log in to post comments)

Ext3 and RAID: silent data killers?

Posted Sep 11, 2009 1:18 UTC (Fri) by Pc5Y9sbv (guest, #41328) [Link]

I agree you cannot blindly use RAID5 without considering the sizing, but what do you consider an acceptable recovery time?

My cheap MD RAID5 with three 500 GB SATA drives allows me to have 1TB and approximately 100 MB/s per drive throughput, which implies a full scan to re-add a replacement drive might take 2 hours or so (reading all 500 GB from 2 drives and writing 500 GB to the third at 75% of full speed). I have never been in a position where this I/O time was worrisome as far as a double fault hazard. Having a commodity box running degraded for several days until replacement parts are delivered is a more common consumer-level concern, which has not changed with drive sizes.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds