From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nf6l9-0004Ej-1g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:13:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A53DE09E8; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.pcorp.com.au (mail2.pcorp.com.au [150.101.72.19]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF06E09E8 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.pcorp.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6818B107405C for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:43:01 +0930 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.pcorp.com.au Received: from mail2.pcorp.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.pcorp.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vW6ZxkamQlJe; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:43:00 +0930 (CST) Received: from [172.16.0.226] (unknown [172.16.0.226]) by mail2.pcorp.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F89B107405B for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:43:00 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far From: Iain Buchanan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <201002100731.44737.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <20100209133448.019a633a@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <1265758661.3193.38.camel@localhost> <201002100731.44737.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:41:47 +0930 Message-ID: <1265785907.3225.10.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: afa69dee-a1fb-4fc9-9f45-d7c18bac9727 X-Archives-Hash: cb5119c25019fa06bba4c7b3450a0d53 On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote: > > so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before > > removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the drives were > > removed. And the deterioration in performance while each disk was > > removed in turn might take more time than its worth. Of course RAID 1 > > wouldn't suffer from this (with >2 disks)... > > Raid 6. Two disks can go down. > not that I know enough about RAID to comment on this page, but you might find it interesting: http://www.baarf.com/ specifically: http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt -- Iain Buchanan The executioner is, I hear, very expert, and my neck is very slender. -- Anne Boleyn