Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:38:24 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu Subject: Re: Raid 1+0 Message-ID: <20160419153824.7b679129f82a3cd0b18b9740@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <64031.128.135.52.6.1461017122.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> References: <571533F4.8040406@bananmonarki.se> <57153E6B.6090200@gmail.com> <20160418210257.GB86917@neutralgood.org> <64031.128.135.52.6.1461017122.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:05:22 -0500 (CDT) "Valeri Galtsev" <galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: > Not correct. First of all, in most of the cases, failure of each of the > drives are independent events If only that were so. When the drives are as near identical as manufacturing can make them and have had very similar histories they can be expected to have very similar wear and be similarly close to failure at all times, which makes it likely that the load imposed by one failing will push another over. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160419153824.7b679129f82a3cd0b18b9740>