RAID6? (was Re: Anyone Actually Using Virtual Linux Servers?)

[Jarod Wilson]

On Tuesday 11 September 2007 03:26:57 pm Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Jarod Wilson <jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 September 2007 12:37:03 pm Derek Atkins wrote:
> > > IIRC:  http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
> >
> > Huh, interesting. I'll have to file that one away for a rainy day...
>
> Oh, that's a classic read!  Yes, in fact after many personal bad
> experiences with RAID, that "NO RAID NO RAID NO RAID" paper got my
> attention and hit home.  And it pretty much reinforced my negativity
> associated with people who claim "RAID CURES ALL DATA LOSS
> SCENARIOS!!!" ...

Let my just reassert that I definitely don't believe that. :)

A sensibly configured RAID (i.e., no RAID0 or 75-disk RAID5 or something 
stupid like that) reduces the risk of downtime due to disk failure and 
potentially reduces data loss in the window between backups, but definitely 
isn't a cure.

> but I am willing to give RAID6 a shot based on 
> Jarod's recommendation.  If I lose my data, that will be the last
> straw though ... and then I will have to personally fly back east to
> Red Hat and strangle Jarod :-)

You'll have to bypass our unhackable[*] security first! And I'm not the 
easiest guy to take out... But despite the risk to my neck, I'll continue to 
stick it out and support RAID6 as a solid RAID level. :)


[*] "unhackable" makes about as much sense as "RAID CURES ALL DATA LOSS 
SCENARIOS!!!", particularly when describing our access control measures here.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.