Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On 2016-09-18 13:28, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: (updated the subject, was [1]) IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, Why. ? Raid56 is not scalable, has less redundancy in most all configurations,

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On 2016-09-18 22:25, Anand Jain wrote: Chris Murphy, Thanks for writing in detail, it makes sense.. Generally hot spare is to reduce the risk of double disk failures leading to the data lose at the data centers before the data is reconstructed again for redundancy. On 09/19/2016 01:28

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

Chris Murphy, Thanks for writing in detail, it makes sense.. Generally hot spare is to reduce the risk of double disk failures leading to the data lose at the data centers before the data is reconstructed again for redundancy. On 09/19/2016 01:28 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Sep 18,

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: >> >> (updated the subject, was [1]) >> >>> IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, >> >> >> Why. ? > > Raid56 is not

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: > > (updated the subject, was [1]) > >> IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, > > > Why. ? Raid56 is not scalable, has less redundancy in most all configurations, rebuild impacts the entire array

RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

(updated the subject, was [1]) IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, Why. ? which is stuck where it is, so we need to get it working first. We need at least one RAID which does not have the availability issue. We could achieve that with raid1, there are