greg.freemyer@gmail.com wrote:
Are you aware of raid arrays that use the smart data for remaps to kick out drives? If so, that is very interesting.
I don't know their exact algorithms, but one of them is a difference in rotation speed and/or access times. If a sector has been remapped on the same 'cylinder', it might not. However, google's data on drive failures showed that "after the first scan error, they found a drive was 39 times more likely to fail in the next 60 days than normal drives." Which means if you have SW that quietly and automatically rewrites the sector, it can hide the risk of continuing to use that drive. (http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure-experience/) --- Sorry, was thinking of RAID5, w/6, you'd need a 3 disk failure. But you'd still only need 1 bad SW failure -- the RAID6 won't protect you from human error. The chances of human error are alot higher than HW% failure. Which is why I go with daily incremental backups on top of RAID-10.
I didn't read further as you seem to not know what raid6 is.
But I notice you didn't bother to explain why it was wrong or what might make RAID6 better than going for backups. Guess you thought everyone else on this list was as stupid as me. -l -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org