From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Apr  2 09:11:34 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA03214 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 09:11:34 -0700
Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.20.4]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA03208 for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 09:11:33 -0700
Received: by brasil.moneng.mei.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA06274; Sun, 2 Apr 95 11:10:01 CDT
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Message-Id: <9504021610.AA06274@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Subject: Re: large filesystems/multiple disks [RAID]
To: wilko@yedi.iaf.nl (Wilko Bulte)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 11:10:00 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: PVinci@ix.netcom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199504011815.UAA01396@yedi.iaf.nl> from "Wilko Bulte" at Apr 1, 95 08:15:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 563       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Stop! Spanning and RAID are not the same. And only RAID5 and friends
> give you  redundancy against single-disk failures. RAID0 (striping)
> leaves you hair tearing when one of the member disks breaks.

Yes, in many cases.  However, those of us managing Usenet spools spread over
half a dozen disks would probably not mind (I'm not particularly fond of
newfs'ing an entire spool after a single disk crash, but it might be an
acceptable tradeoff).  It would be nice to see some sort of solution, even
if it's not necessarily "optimal" at this time.  :-)

... JG