|
|
|
|
|
|
by dale_glass
700 days ago
|
|
|
> The results vary between annoying (need to restore / “resilver” and have no redundancy until it’s done; massively increased risk of data loss while doing so due to heavy IO load without redundancy and pointless loss of the redundancy that already exists) to catastrophic (outright corruption). I'm not sure what you expect? RAID1 is a simple data copy, you made sure to make both disks contain different data. So there's two outcomes possible: either the system notices this and copies A to B or B to A to reestablish the redundancy, or it fails to notice and you get corruption. Linux MD allows for partial sync with the bitmap. If the system knows something in the first 5% of the disk changed, it can limit itself to only syncing that 5%. > Yet most competent active-active database systems have no problems with this scenario! Because they're not RAID. The whole point of RAID is that it's extremely simple. This means it's a brute force method with some downsides, but in exchange it's extremely easy to reason about. |
|
|