Dan, my comment on RAID5 was wrt the original poster mentioning software RAID. I think you are using a hardware RAID controller... they may do things better to reduce stress at recovery time... I don't know. * Dan Langille <dan [ at ] langille [ dot ] org> [050807 12:14]: > I have a RAID-5 box as my main development server. It's not there > for performance. It's there for reliability. I was given an Adaptec > 2400A which user IDE drives. So far, it's been great. That's what I thought too. Then on disk in my RAID-5 array died. I swapped out the bad disk for a good disk, and the recovery started. The recovery put so much stress on the other old drives that one of them also died. I didn't lose much data, but I did lose some. From what I read on the web since the incident, RAID5 recovery hickups are common -- at least with Linux software-RAID. Anyway, I learned two things: 1) don't use same vintage/manufacturer/production-line drives in any redundancy RAID, and 2) spend the extra money fro RAID-1. > I also use RAID-1 on my workstation. It's there so a single disk > failure doesn't require a full restore. Exactly! -Bart -- WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature