On Monday 26 April 2010 09:29:28 Tim Clewlow wrote: > I'm getting ready to build a RAID 6 with 4 x 2TB drives to start, > but the intention is to add more drives as storage requirements > increase.
Since you seem fine with RAID 6, I'll assume you are also fine with RAID 5. I don't know what your requirements / levels of paranoia are, but RAID 5 is probably better than RAID 6 until you are up to 6 or 7 drives; the chance of a double failure in a 5 (or less) drive array is minuscule. > I intend to use mdadm to build / run the array. Modern mdadm can migrate from RAID 5 to RAID 6 when you add the 6th/7th drive into the array. Also modem mdadm has a wealth of RAID 1/0 features that may actually be a better performance-wise than RAID 5 or RAID 6. > If an unrecoverable > read error (bad block that on disk circuitry cant resolve) is > discovered on a disk then how does mdadm handle this? It appears the > possibilities are: > 1) the disk gets marked as failed in the array - ext3 does not get > notified of a bad block This one. > I would really like to hear it is either 2 or 3 as I would prefer > not to have an entire disk immediately marked bad due to one > unrecoverable read error Sorry. > I would prefer to be notified instead so > I can still have RAID 6 protecting "most" of the data until the disk > gets replaced. You can add the failed device back into the array and it will re-sync until there is another issue with the device. Just be sure to remember which device needs replacing for when your new HW arrives. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
