Kyle McDonald writes:
> Ross wrote:
> > Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a
> > raid-z / raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10
> > chance of loosing some data during a full rebuild.
> >
> >
> >
> Actually, I think it'
Ross wrote:
> Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a
> raid-z / raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10
> chance of loosing some data during a full rebuild.
>
>
>
Actually, I think it's been explained already why this is actually
Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a raid-z
/ raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10 chance of
loosing some data during a full rebuild.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-d
I've read various articles along those lines. My understanding is that a 500GB
odd raid-z / raid-5 array has around a 1 in 10 chance of loosing at least some
data during a rebuild.
I'd have raid-5 arrays fail at least 4 times, twice during a rebuild. In most
cases I've been able to recover th
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Aaron Blew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My take is that since RAID-Z creates a stripe for every block
> (http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z), it should be able to
> rebuild the bad sectors on a per block basis. I'd assume that the
> likelihood of having bad s
My take is that since RAID-Z creates a stripe for every block
(http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z), it should be able to
rebuild the bad sectors on a per block basis. I'd assume that the
likelihood of having bad sectors on the same places of all the disks
is pretty low since we're only read
