Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261470AbVE2X6M (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 19:58:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261471AbVE2X6M (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 19:58:12 -0400 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:41960 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261470AbVE2X6J (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 19:58:09 -0400 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature) Organization: Private Site running Debian GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.8-20050315 ("Scalpay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.8.1 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 01:58:05 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 701 Lines: 16 In article you wrote: > I think Linux should stop accessing all disks in RAID-5 array if two disks > fail and not write "this array is dead" in superblocks on remaining disks, > efficiently destroying the whole array. I agree with you, however it is a pretty damned stupid idea to use raid-5 for a root disk (I was about to say it is not a good idea to use raid-5 on linux at all :) Gruss Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/