also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.18.1051 +0200]: > a 2nd drive failed. I shut it down, got some new drives (bigger to be > sure they weren't too small, allowing for differences in drive sizes > reported by drive makers), replaced the bad drives, and rebuilt the > spare with no problem at all.
Are you certain the rebuild was completed? Did you --add the drives to the array after --remove'ing the broken ones? > State : active, degraded [...] > 0 0 0 - removed > 1 0 0 - removed > 2 34 0 2 active sync /dev/hdg This does not look like you did. > I notice the information changes from drive to drive and is > inconsistent. The reason for this is that some of the drives' superblocks have not been updated because you did not --add them. I hope you have backups. Otherwise I doubt you'll get your data back easily. also sprach Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.18.1537 +0200]: > 3) RAID 5 is not resilient against multiple failures. We now use RAID 1. > RAID 1 is also faster, although it sometimes requires more drives. > In extreme cases we use RAID 1 with three or more drives. RAID 1 is also not resilient to multiple failures. > 4) With four drives, rather than RAID 5 with a hot spare, I would create > two RAID 1 arrays. One could then combine them in RAID 0 or linear > but I would choose to make them be PVMs in a LVM VG. ... or use RAID 10, if you don't need LVM otherwise. You'll get better performance with RAID 10 than with RAID1+LVM (or RAID1+linear or RAID1+RAID0 for that matter). -- .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems tempt not a desperate man. -- william shakespeare
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
