[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs data loss

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs data loss
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:14:13 +0200
In-reply-to: <B9A7B002C7FAFC469D4229539E909760308DA65407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <B9A7B002C7FAFC469D4229539E909760308DA651DE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A981133.6060009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <B9A7B002C7FAFC469D4229539E909760308DA65407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; )
On Samstag 29 August 2009 Passerone, Daniele wrote:
> But apart from that, it is not as easy to backup 20 TB, so we decided
> to set it as data storage leaving the responsibilty of the backup to
> our users. I do not consider it completely absurd.

Right, if you communicated this to users it's OK.

But really, don't create any RAID with more than 8 data disks. 
Performance doesn't increase above that, and the chance that a single 
disk dies is already 8x as high as with a single disk.

I wish you luck with your recovery, but please try to split your 20 
disks, make it 2x9 disks with a RAID-5, better RAID-6, and connect those 
two via RAID-0. So you get a RAID-50 or RAID-60. Take the remaining 2 
drives as hot spare. This will protect you at least from drive failures, 
and speeds up recreating the RAID when a disk dies.
Try to connect the disks which are in a single RAID-5/6 via the same 
controllers, so if a controller dies it's only one RAID-5/6 part that 
dies, which will help to make it possible to repair.

mfg zmi
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc    -----      http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31                      .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key:         "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38  500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4
// Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net                  Key-ID: 1C1209B4

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>