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 1NeqjV-0005mB-RE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:06:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2626EE0C81 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:06:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1FF1E0D04 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zaphod.digimed.co.uk (zaphod.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C44A41C415 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:34:49 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:34:48 +0000 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far Message-ID: <20100209133448.019a633a@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <63F56C2B-97D3-4A98-9338-ED1D82FFAB1E@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <20100207193947.GB30196@math.princeton.edu> <5bdc1c8b1002071342v6c81cf13gde7bcef72be5017b@mail.gmail.com> <20100208020850.GA21754@math.princeton.edu> <5bdc1c8b1002080910p37f78fdch99827fab37be32cb@mail.gmail.com> <4B705D6B.1090803@gmail.com> <58965d8a1002081234n97b4b5apa88e262dc53b3d9a@mail.gmail.com> <20100209002757.0ec74d01@digimed.co.uk> <63F56C2B-97D3-4A98-9338-ED1D82FFAB1E@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5cvs10 (GTK+ 2.18.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/RkoZ1ivF6Zq0cqjFSa4yPD3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: b331250f-14e3-4c4c-8668-47d9afc2704f X-Archives-Hash: 24953a155bc251a02304a63f8be254a5 --Sig_/RkoZ1ivF6Zq0cqjFSa4yPD3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +0000, Stroller wrote: > > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it, =20 > > rinse and > > repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue. =20 >=20 > Aren't you thinking of LVM, or something? No. The very nature of RAID is redundancy, so you could remove one disk from the array to modify its setup then replace it. --=20 Neil Bothwick "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler --Sig_/RkoZ1ivF6Zq0cqjFSa4yPD3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktxZHgACgkQum4al0N1GQM8TACg1cHUdmlReY12Dx7Dd9ZfiyUi plAAoM82GgbtwiZJJYQ2gbBQILbRRqlP =6JkT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/RkoZ1ivF6Zq0cqjFSa4yPD3--