| 1 |
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +0000, Stroller wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it, |
| 5 |
> > > > rinse and |
| 6 |
> > > > repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Aren't you thinking of LVM, or something? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > No. The very nature of RAID is redundancy, so you could remove one disk |
| 11 |
> > from the array to modify its setup then replace it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before |
| 14 |
> removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the drives were |
| 15 |
> removed. And the deterioration in performance while each disk was |
| 16 |
> removed in turn might take more time than its worth. Of course RAID 1 |
| 17 |
> wouldn't suffer from this (with >2 disks)... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Raid 6. Two disks can go down. |
Archives