Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261499AbVE3CsA (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 22:48:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261502AbVE3CsA (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 22:48:00 -0400 Received: from artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.125]:49846 "EHLO artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261499AbVE3Cr7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 22:47:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 04:47:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikulas Patocka To: Bernd Eckenfels Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 812 Lines: 18 > 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 :) But root disk might fail too... This way, the system can't be taken down by any single disk crash. Mikulas - 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/