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
unrela
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
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 recov
> 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 r
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
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 nev
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
Hi,
I want to report a number of problems in the current raid5 code, some of
which are pretty annoying, some of which require a superblock reformat.
Here's my setup:
- dual AMD opteron with 64-bit kernel, 2.6.10/2.6.8.1
- 5 raid disks, 4 standard ide on hda..hdd, one sata-device
(that setup gi
10 matches
Mail list logo
