On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:56:54 rainer at ultra-secure.de wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:34:21 Torres, Giovanni (NIH/NINDS) [C] wrote: > >> On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:23 AM, Matthew Feinberg wrote: > >> > >> ext4 does not seem to be fully baked in 5.6 yet. parted 1.8 does not > >> support creating ext4 (strange) > >> > >> The CentOS homepage states that ext4 is now a fully supported filesystem > >> in > >> 5.6. _______________________________________________ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS at centos.org > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > Steve, > > I'm managing machines with 30TB of storage for more then two years. And > > with > > good reporting and reaction we have never had to run fsck. > > That's not the issue. > The issue is rebuild-time. > The longer it takes, the more likely is another failure in the array. > With RAID6, this does not instantly kill your RAID, as with RAID5 - but I > assume it will further decrease overall-performance and the rebuild-time > will go up significantly - adding the the risk. > Thus, it's generally advisable to do just use RAID10 (in this case, a > thin-striped array of RAID1-arrays). > Yes... but with such RAID10 solution you get only half of the disk space... so from 10 2TB drives you get only 10TB instead of 16TB with RAID6. Some of us really need the space. Rebuild time(while it is less then 4 days) is considered good enough. In my case I'm using these servers for backups and the raid rebuilds haven't made any changes to the performance of the backups. I'm sure that if you use such storage with RAID6 for VMs it wont perform very well. Marian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110412/2cac6e64/attachment-0005.sig>