Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom
partitioning
>>>>> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5
or
>>>>> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6?
>>>
>>> It's pathological. There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient
options considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two or three
SSDs + n-way mirroring. RAID 10. Or RAID 1 + linear + XFS for deterministic workloads.
>>
>> Those three examples are simpler, more resilient, easier to configure and
maintain, perform better, with faster rebuild times than RAID 6 which also has a high
read-modify-write penalty. I left that part out.
>
> yes, but RAID6 allows a disk-fault *while* rebuild the RAID after the first one
> RADID 10 *may* do the same if the *right* second disk fails
If you need two disk failure tolerance use n-way mirroring with three disks, anaconda
supports this
and if you need failure tolerance *and* performance?
yes, then use commercial SAN storages...