Gary Dale <extremegroundmai...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 04/12/14 12:51 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:13:59PM +0100, mad wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I wanted to create a RAID5 with lvm. The basic setup is something like
>>>
>>> lvcreate --type raid5 -i 2 -L 1G -n my_lv my_vg
>>>
>>> which would mean 3 physical drives would be used in this RAID5. But can
>>> I specify that one drive is missing as it is possible with mdadm?
>> I don't think so, no. You can create your RAID with mdadm and
>> put LVM on top of that.
>>
>> In general I strongly recommend against using RAID5. RAID1, 10,
>> or 6 are all better options if your data's availability is
>> important to you.
>>
>> -dsr-
>>
> Sorry, but there are good reasons to use RAID 5 and better reasons to
> NOT use RAID 10. RAID 1 and RAID 5 are both immune to single disk
> failures in their most common configurations (1 or more data disks
> with 1 parity disk).
The problem is not that RAID5 does not provide resilience against a
single disk failure. The problem is that with modern disk capacities,
the chances of *another* disk failing while the array is rebuilding have
significantly risen.
Especially when all the disks came out of the the same batch, they tend
to fail at similar times. I know Best Practice is to mix disks in RAID
arrays, but who actually practices that, instead of just taking the risk
of failure and covering it with a higher RAID level, like RAID6 in this
case?
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/86y4qm76vi....@gaheris.avalon.lan
