<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Steve Hodge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stevehodge@gmail.com">stevehodge@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Hadley Rich <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hads@nice.net.nz" target="_blank">hads@nice.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 21:38 +1200, Jim Cheetham wrote:<br>
> If you lose a second drive while one drive is out of action ... you<br>
> lose data. Gone.<br>
<br>
</div>Same as your two disk RAID1.<br>
<div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>Not quite. Lose a drive in a RAID5 and the rebuilt will mean accessing every bit on every remaining drive. That can add enough stress to cause a second drive to fail. Lose a drive in a RAID1 and at worst the load will double, and then only if you keep using the filesystem.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I should have mentioned that eventually you'll have to read all the data off the remaining drive of the mirror as well, my point was that in practice RAID5 rebuilds have been more problematic.<br>
</div></div>