No, I'm saying you are trolling. A concat of RAID1 pairs has
reliability identical to RAID10.
not a concat but separate filesystem.
On 7/1/2012 5:48 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-07-01 3:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> In a production environment, the mirror pairs will be duplexed across
>> two SAS/SATA controllers.
>>
>> Duplexing the mirrors makes a concat/RAID1, and a properly configured
>> RAID10, inherently more reli
On 2012-07-01 3:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
In a production environment, the mirror pairs will be duplexed across
two SAS/SATA controllers.
Duplexing the mirrors makes a concat/RAID1, and a properly configured
RAID10, inherently more reliable than RAID5 or RAID6, which simply can't
be protected
On 2012-06-29 12:07 PM, Ed W wrote:
On 29/06/2012 12:15, Charles Marcus wrote:
Depends on what you mean exactly by 'incorrect'...
I'm sorry, this wasn't meant to be an attack on you,
No worries - it wasn't taken that way - I simply disagreed with the main
point you were making, and still
design and operation.
--
Stan
> -Original Message-
> From: dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org [mailto:dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org] On
> Behalf Of Stan Hoeppner
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:24 PM
> To: dovecot@dovecot.org
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] RAID1+md concat+XFS as mail
@dovecot.org
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] RAID1+md concat+XFS as mailstorage
On 6/28/2012 7:15 AM, Ed W wrote:
> On 28/06/2012 13:01, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
>> somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
>> mailstorage.
>> Does anybody in he
On 6/28/2012 7:15 AM, Ed W wrote:
> On 28/06/2012 13:01, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
>> somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
>> mailstorage.
>> Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
>>
>> I've decided to give it a try,
>> but ended up with not bein
On 29/06/2012 12:15, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 4:35 PM, Ed W wrote:
On 28/06/2012 17:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
RAID10 also statistically has a much better chance of surviving a
multi drive failure than RAID5 or 6, because it will only die if two
drives in the same pair fail, and only
On 2012-06-29 1:02 AM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
I will never rely on a non-checksumming file system for production
use again, for data that is existed to persist over time.
Nice! I'm seriously considering buying a Nexenta Storage device if/when
our storage needs require it... this just make
Kelsey Cummings wrote:
> On 06/28/12 05:56, Ed W wrote:
>> So given the statistics show us that 2 disk failures are much more
>> common than we expect, and that "silent corruption" is likely occurring
>> within (larger) real world file stores, there really aren't many battle
>> tested options that
On 2012-06-29 2:19 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
Has anyone tried or benchmarked ZFS, perhaps ZFS+NFS as backing store for
yes. long time ago. ZFS isn't useful for anything more than a toy. I/O
performance is just bad.
Please stop with the FUD... 'long time ago'? No elaboration on what
implem
On 2012-06-28 4:35 PM, Ed W wrote:
On 28/06/2012 17:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
RAID10 also statistically has a much better chance of surviving a
multi drive failure than RAID5 or 6, because it will only die if two
drives in the same pair fail, and only then if the second one fails
before the hot
Has anyone tried or benchmarked ZFS, perhaps ZFS+NFS as backing store for
yes. long time ago. ZFS isn't useful for anything more than a toy. I/O
performance is just bad.
The executive summary is something like: when raid5 fails, because at that
point you effectively do a raid "scrub" you tend to suddenly notice a bunch
of other hidden problems which were lurking and your rebuild fails (this
and no raid will protect you from every failure. You have to do backups
On 06/28/12 05:56, Ed W wrote:
So given the statistics show us that 2 disk failures are much more
common than we expect, and that "silent corruption" is likely occurring
within (larger) real world file stores, there really aren't many battle
tested options that can protect against this - really
On 28/06/2012 17:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 12:20 PM, Ed W wrote:
Bad things are going to happen if you loose a complete chunk of your
filesystem. I think the current state of the world is that you should
assume that realistically you will be looking to your backups if you
loose t
On 2012-06-28 12:20 PM, Ed W wrote:
Bad things are going to happen if you loose a complete chunk of your
filesystem. I think the current state of the world is that you should
assume that realistically you will be looking to your backups if you
loose the wrong 2 disks in a raid1 or raid10 array.
On 28/06/2012 14:06, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
- RAID1 pairs, plus some kind of intelligent overlay filesystem, eg
md-linear+XFS / BTRFS. With the filesystem aware of the underlying
arrangement it can theoretically optimise file placement and
dramatically increase write speeds for smal
>- RAID1 pairs, plus some kind of intelligent overlay filesystem, eg
>md-linear+XFS / BTRFS. With the filesystem aware of the underlying
>arrangement it can theoretically optimise file placement and
>dramatically increase write speeds for small files in the same manner
>that RAID-0 theoreticall
On 28/06/2012 13:46, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
(unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
nope, I'm talking about complete pair's crash when two disks die.
I do understand that's the possibility of such outcome (when two
disks in the same pair crash) is not high, but
when we have
(unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
nope, I'm talking about complete pair's crash when two disks die.
I do understand that's the possibility of such outcome (when two disks in the
same pair crash) is not high, but
when we have 12 or 24 disks in storage...
then may 6-12
, 2012 11:15 PM
To: dovecot@dovecot.org
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] RAID1+md concat+XFS as mailstorage
On 28/06/2012 13:01, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
> Hello!
>
> somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
> mailstorage.
> Does anybody in here
Note that you wouldn't get anything back from a similar fail of a RAID10
array either (unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
use multiple RAID1 arrays, 2 drives each, one filesystem each.
On 28/06/2012 13:01, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
Hello!
somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
mailstorage.
Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
I've decided to give it a try,
but ended up with not being able to recover any data off survived pai
Hello!
somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
mailstorage.
Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
I've decided to give it a try,
but ended up with not being able to recover any data off survived pairs from
linear array when _the_first of raid1 pairs got do
25 matches
Mail list logo