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

[Jarod Wilson]

On Tuesday 11 September 2007 12:37:03 pm Derek Atkins wrote:
> Jarod Wilson <jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> writes:
> > Personally, I moved from RAID5 to RAID6 after getting bit by a second
> > disk going haywire while a RAID5 array was being rebuilt after replacing
> > a disk that had failed. Went RAID6 over RAID10 primarily since it should
> > survive failing any two disks, and in cursory testing, the throughput was
> > still more than adequate (some have complained about the computational
> > intensity of RAID6, but with a modern multi-core cpu, *shrug*).
>
> Fair enough..  For me I'm pondering this for the case of an 8-core
> vmware host server.

Yeah, I don't think you'd have any cpu issues there. :)

> >> ISTR a problem in that with RAID5 if
> >> you had a partial disk failure (i.e. it just returned bogus data) that
> >> you could corrupt your data because Linux S/W RAID didn't do checksum
> >> verification on reads -- so it was "safer" to use RAID10.  Is this
> >> "fixed" in raid6?
> >
> > Hrm. I wasn't aware of any such issue, so I haven't a clue if its fixed
> > or not...
>
> IIRC:  http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

Huh, interesting. I'll have to file that one away for a rainy day...

-- 
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.