From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EdnTe-0000qs-TX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:35:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAKBY1c9030605; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:34:01 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAKBUsQT014089 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:30:55 GMT Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EdnPK-0001Zy-G0 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:30:54 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EdnOL-0007em-4Y for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:29:53 +0100 Received: from ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.182]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:29:53 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:29:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: implementation details for GLEP 41 Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 04:29:29 -0700 Organization: Sometimes Message-ID: References: <20051119170615.GW12982@mail.lieber.org> <200511192042.38836.cshields@gentoo.org> <438000AD.404@gentoo.org> <200511192104.13982.cshields@gentoo.org> <20051120054441.GA17389@curie-int.vc.shawcable.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 5574b1f4-902c-47d9-8607-d23ee2a0c2e9 X-Archives-Hash: a0e856c5d5fd696050736970270b0ef6 Robin H. Johnson posted <20051120054441.GA17389@curie-int.vc.shawcable.net>, excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:44:41 -0800: > The 6x146GB is overkill for storage, unless you have some other plans > that I'm not aware of (I'm assuming RAID5 with a hot-spare, so 4x146GB > usable). 6x72GB might be more suitable for the budget. As I just RAID-ed my main system, and have the info fresh... If the capacity is there, go RAID6 (dual parity RAID5, so two drives can drop out without the thing dieing) with a hot-spare as well, so threex146GB usable. In any case, I'd go RAID6 with no hot-spare over RAID5 with a hot-spare, as it's effectively the same thing, only with RAID6, you can lose two at once without dieing, instead of only one -- and you hope the second waits to die at least until the hot-spare gets synced. This of course assumes software RAID, as RAID6 is certainly a kernel option. If it's hardware RAID, you of course go with the capacities the hardware supplies, and I'd guess RAID6 is a less common option, certainly less commonly known. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list