> You can always fake this effect by combining two 8-disk RAID-5s into a
> RAID-0. It's not technically RAID-6, but can withstand a 2-disk failure,
> although not _any_ 2-disk failure. However, it's my understanding that
> RAID-6 cannot withstand _any_ two disk failure either (see the above
> thread).
It'll waste 9 drives, giving me a total capacity of 7n instead of 14n.
And, by definition, RAID-6 _can_ withstand _any_ two-drive failure.
> I also suspect that the use of dual RAID-5s combined with the CPU overhead
> of ATA will kill most systems under any kind of load. For that matter, the
> 2x parity hit from RAID-6 probably wouldn't make you CPU too happy either,
> even if there was a kernel driver that implemented it.
With a 1500MHz Athlon on a typical file server where there's not much
writes, the CPU is sitting there chrunching RC5-64 som 99,95 % of the
time. I don't think it'll make much differnce with today's CPUs
roy
-- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, DatavaktmesterComputers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows.
- 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 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST