[ale] XFS on Linux - Is it ready for prime time?

[Lightner, Jeff]

Maybe not great with reading either - he said per active PAIR not SPARE.
:p

 

________________________________

From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Greg
Clifton
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:43 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
Subject: Re: [ale] XFS on Linux - Is it ready for prime time?

 

Hey, I'm not great with math, but if you have one hot spare for each
active spare, wouldn't you need mirrored quadruplets?

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com>
wrote:

RAID 5 was an invention for a time when hard drives were total crap tons
of money. The pain of losing a drive in a RAID 5 array is just no longer
balanced by the cost of the drives. If a 1TB drive is only $100, it's
bluntly dirt cheap now to have a hot spare in a 4 active drive RAID 10
system. The recovery is much easier and faster when checksums don't have
to be calculated for every stinking block on the drive(s). 

My ideal rig: Striped array for speed composed of mirrored triplets - 2
active, one hot spare per active pair.

 

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Greg Clifton <gccfof5 at gmail.com> wrote:

Shift in focus to the hardware side of the equation. This thread
concentrates on software generated corruption issues, but I have some
hardware related questions. First, with RAIDed hard drives, are any file
systems more or less likely to cause (or minimize) the likelihood of
corruption of the array and if so, why? Second Greg F (and others) have
commented on NOT using RAID 5 (and RAID 6) esp. with large hard drives.
Looks like 1 or 2 TB hard drives will soon be "standard issue" for
everything but notebook computers. So does that mean that RAID should be
considered 'dead,' except for 0, 1, 10? Third, would SSDs solve the
failure from bad sector issues with HDDs and thus be safe for RAID 5/6
implementations?


 

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net>
wrote:
...

> Does anyone out there use xfs? How about a suggestion for a stable
replacement.

If you use the xfs in the mainline kernel, it's a crap shoot because
of the amount of churn in the code, but
if you use a long-term kernel like 2.6.16.y, 2.6.27.y, or the kernels
maintained by distros, then it ought to be stable (as long as the
distro has enough of a user base for other people to find the xfs
bugs first).

--
 Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net>
 http://noserose.net/e/
 http://www.coraid.com/

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo





  


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo





-- 
-- 

James P. Kinney III
Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness         


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
 
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
 
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100422/b904df19/attachment.html