From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263594AbTDTO4x (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 10:56:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263595AbTDTO4w (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 10:56:52 -0400 Received: from siaag2ad.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.134]:52361 "EHLO siaag2ad.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263594AbTDTO4w (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 10:56:52 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:06:20 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? To: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304201108_MC3-1-3533-D395@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > Buy IDE disks in pairs use md1, and remember to continually send the > hosed ones back to the vendor/shop (and if they keep appearing DOA to > your local trading standards/fair trading type bodies). I buy three drives at a time so I have a matching spare, because AFAIC you shouldn't be doing RAID on unmatched drives. Using RAID1 is especially important when using software instead of hardware for fault-tolerance because the software is more likely to have bugs just because of the 'culture' of hardware vs. software developers, and the RAID5 algorithm is very hard to get right anyway, especially in failure/rebuild mode. Even on a hardware controller RAID5 is still inherently less reliable. (...and what's all this about unreliable drives, anyway? Every drive I have bought since 1987 still works.) ------ Chuck