> Hallo Simon, > >> Anyway, the splitting of large disks has additional advantages. Think of >> what happens in case of a failure (power loss, kernel crash...). With >> the >> disk as one large chunk, the whole disk has to be resynced on restart >> while with smaller segments only those which are marked as dirty have to >> be resynced. This can make a bit difference. > > I am not sure if this is true. If a underlying disk fails, it will mark > all partitions on that disk as dirty, so you will have to resync them all > after replacing or readding the disk into the array. No, I'm not talking about a complete disk failure, my example wasn't a failure at all but a server problem like power loss, kernel crash and such things. In this case only the segments which were not in sync at the time of the crash will be resynced on restart, not the whole disk. The same is, if a read error happens on one disk, only the partial segment will lose redundancy and not the whole contents of the disk. That's a huge improvement especially on very large disks. Simon