Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?

From: Chuck Ebbert (76306.1226@compuserve.com)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2003 - 12:28:22 EST


>> I buy three drives at a time so I have a matching spare, because AFAIC
>> you shouldn't be doing RAID on unmatched drives.
>
> Err, yes you should :-).
>
> Unless they are spindle syncronised, the advantage of identical
> physical layout diminishes, and the disadvantage of quite possibly
> getting components from the same, (faulty), batch increases :-).

 Yeah, I know, and some of my serial numbers are too close together
for comfort but I still like everything matched up:

hde: MAXTOR 4K060H3, ATA DISK drive
hdg: MAXTOR 4K060H3, ATA DISK drive
hdi: MAXTOR 4K060H3, ATA DISK drive
 hde: hde1 hde2 hde3 hde4 < hde5 hde6 hde7 hde8 hde9 >
 hdg: hdg1 hdg2 hdg3 hdg4 < hdg5 hdg6 hdg7 hdg8 hdg9 >
 hdi: hdi1 hdi2 hdi3 hdi4 < hdi5 hdi6 hdi7 hdi8 hdi9 >

------
 Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:27 EST