[vdr] Re: OT: 149 GB Maxtor disks.

[Lars Bensmann <lars@almosthappy.de>]

Hello,

On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:25:33AM +0200, Emil Naepflein wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:34:28 +0200, Lars Bensmann <lars@almosthappy.de>
> wrote:
> 
> This doesn't matter for me when the ide channel is down on a disk
> failure. It isn't important to stay online on a disk failure, it is
> important to preserve the data. After the failed disk is removed the
> system will come up again in degraded mode and the data will still be
> available. 

No, it will not. After a channel failure both disks will be marked as
failed and the Raid will not start running automatically. There is a
chance to get it running again, but data integrity is seriously threatend.

I don't know what happens with a Raid-0, but I'm sceptical if you can
rescue any data when 1 disk goes down.

> BTW, I *never* had any disk failure on any PC-system I use since 15+
> years. And I have used a lot of them.

Well, I really hope it stays this way. I know, I had my share of broken
disks.

> > unsyncronized, but the data was fine. Of course for this you would have
> > to sacrifice another disk for parity, so you would have "just"
> > (3 * 80 GB) + (2 * 80 GB) = 400 GB left.
> > 
> > On the two Raid-5 devices you could run LVM to hide the physical
> > seperation.
> 
> This would be a possibility, but IMHO it isn't worth to scarifice of 80
> GB here. i don't need 100 % system availability, I only need 100 % data
> availability in case of a single disk failure.

This is not given. See above.

cu,
Lars

P.S. This gets seriousy offtopic. Maybe we should continue this off-list.

-- 
Accident report:
  To avoid hitting the bumper of the car in front, I struck the
  pedestrian.