On 01/11/11 5:34 PM, aurfalien at gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, aurfalien at gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I'm attempting to use parted to create a partition on a 28TB volume >>> which consists of 16x2TB drives configuired in a Raid 5 + spare, so >>> total unformatted size is 28TB to the OS.. >> I don't know the answer to your parted question, but let me be the >> first >> of many to express horror at the idea of using RAID-5 for such a large >> volume with so many spindles, even with a hot spare. The rebuild >> times are >> probably going to be days, and the chance of a second spindle >> failure in >> that time is high enough to make it dangerous. Use RAID-6 at least. > Hi Steve. > > I went with Raid 6 + spare. > > I'll force a failure (that is, once I get past my parted issue) and > let you know rebuild times I wouldn't do that if read/write performance is important during the possibly several day rebuild times. a degraded raid6 can be really really slow until its fully rebuilt. I personally prefer using RAID10 for just about everything, except maybe a bulk nearline store, and those will be raid5 or 6 with no more than 6-8 disks per raidset, if I have more spindles, I do raid 5+0 or 6+0 (eg, stripe two raid5 or raid6 sets). disks are cheap. time is money.