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 1Nf682-00068Q-LL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:32:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F648E0948; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f216.google.com (mail-fx0-f216.google.com [209.85.220.216]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED026E0948 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so7758981fxm.26 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:31:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=EfGqIwadSbEcK+xRyECjuaJr8/cVVcofX8k5uX+Qj4E=; b=XuDgdpiDE84bc4Kj0H9/TyC0/YEDFq828HIqGWt+rQd7GhcMSynbiD0iF7dmXW90dH PLHJIXxfoqFs96iMgrLfE/I7HcBE+ugRwdGNvyjvMc/O/CLjhxEBGmfT1vxbQsl3pyT5 bWJAJ07Hrc+fSKDbiwHMDUPROT84IPgmHxUV8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=StAYSgH0h+RO9XxOW3K0wE14VICbXugKQ+JrovHaWRf5izAyeDjcYzphVsfxXvuaLZ vxfkgkjn0WGhKIaUNQKpPcykpvKDClhPhOvoxCLjIOYHmzLF1zCtINc1w/Z429PYea/F ClmKTsCR7fkeesMvegHsqEcvDVVHmYcmjyuvo= Received: by 10.103.84.37 with SMTP id m37mr861832mul.81.1265783508536; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:31:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from energy.localnet (ip-80-226-1-7.vodafone-net.de [80.226.1.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e8sm5167001muf.5.2010.02.09.22.31.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:31:47 -0800 (PST) From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:31:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.0 (Linux/2.6.31.12r4; KDE/4.3.95; x86_64; ; ) References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <20100209133448.019a633a@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <1265758661.3193.38.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1265758661.3193.38.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 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002100731.44737.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: d186fbaf-73e1-4f20-8574-60ecc12770f6 X-Archives-Hash: 5f195954118b6a2be50d2afa9d9ba1da On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +0000, Stroller wrote: > > > > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it, > > > > rinse and > > > > repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue. > > > > > > 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. > > 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.