On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:36:35PM +0100, Pol Hallen wrote: > > NOTE WELL: The md(4) man pages says that raid6 can handle the failure of > > any 2 disks. You pulled 3. Good way to hose the array. > Is failure the same of disconnession of disk?
As far as the raid system is, yes a missing disk is indistinguisable from a failed disk that is non-responsive. > > I thinked there is it so. Because if the disk crash the all data are lost, > but > I if disconnect the disk there are date yet. > But how does the raid system know that the data is intact? Remember that the parity data for the other disks is interspursed with the data on each disk. Without the raid system adopting the disk, how do you sort it out? > > Considering that this is a test, there should be no concern over data. > > You did a backup prior to this test? > Yes :-) > > > You hosed the RAID6 array by pulling 3 disks. The spares only help if a > > spare disk can get syncd before a third disk died. > > So, no, you have to make a new raid and restore from backup. > Is there another way to increase the security data? I always use raid1 or raid 10. With either, there is not parity data floating around, just more copies of the data. Take raid1 for example. You could have as many active disks spread out over many controllers as you like until the risk of multiple disk failures is as low as the cumulative risk to the box which contains the disks and controllers. Normally, good backups, one two live copies plus a spare disk is adequate. If it is not, then you don't have a "normal" threat tolerance and you need to consider the risk of an individual box. I.e. totally redundant boxes with real-time fail-over, Network Attached Storage, iSCSI to remote boxes, etc. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
