Hi,

I am using mdadm to emulate s/w raid on my system.

I am trying to create a RAID 5 configuration on my system. I have 4 disks, each of X GB, with me. I can create a raid 5 by the following command:

mdadm --create --level 5 --chunk 4 --raid-devices 3 --spare-devices 1 --run /dev/md0 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde

The above command creates a perfect raid.

By the definition definition of RAID 5, it requires minimum of 3 disks (excluding spare disk) for its configuration. RAID-5 is nothing but RAID-0 with distributed block level parity.

Now, if I try to create RAID 5 with the following command:

mdadm --create --level 5 --chunk 4 --raid-devices 2 --run /dev/md0 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc

It still goes ahead and creates a RAID 5 with just two disks.

That means it is using one disk of writing data & other for parity. Is this right? Shouldn't mdadm fail, when we provide only 2 disks to create RAID-5?

Though it keeps intact other raid-5 configuration. Say, if I have spare disk & any one of the 2 disk is gone bad the spare disk is added to raid to maintain its clean status.

Just want to know whether mdadm should fail of not, while creating RAID-5 with 2 disk. If no, then the very definition of RAID-5 is contradicted.

Please comment.

Regards,
Amit

I think Raid 5 need minimum 3 disks. if any one fail it start write the parity in the memory. It is applicable for harware-raid controller while that time the performence will go down while you reboot again in the boot up again it will start to regenerate parity. i think for sw/raid also it's doing the same thing only.

In reality, the first command creates a raid 6 array, which does not really make sense when you have 4 drives total. if that setup gives you the space you need, it is probably safer to use raid10, for better redundancy. raid5 basically combines the speed of striping with the security of mirroring. unless your drives are old and likely to fail soon, (and if so, why do you use them for trusted storage) there is probably no need to keep a hot spare.


did you try to create a 2-disk raid5 array, or is it a question. my guess is that mdadm would either create a degraded 3-drive array or fail.

Not supposed to link to other forums, but this question and discussion has already taken place.
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-566803.html

with only 2 drives you do NOT have a RAID 5 array, no matter whether mdadm complained or not.
If you want to have fault tolerance and only have 2 drives then setup a RAID 1 array.


According to the MAN page for mdadm.. http://man-wiki.net/index.php/8:mdadm
so no mdadm would not throw an error,

Hi,

Thanks everyone for posting your thought with your valuable time.

I got the answer that I was looking for.

Special thanks to 'farslayer' for pointing out the ubuntu forams list where similar discussion has already taken place. This made the picture clearer for me.

Thanks once again.

Regards,
Amit

i use RAID5 rather than 10 on a 4 disk setup...

if each disk is 500GB (like mine) then RAID5 gives 1.5TB space where RAID10 gives 1TB
as im more instersted in the size avalable and speed increace that stripinfg gives but am not prepared with the one drive fails you loose everything aspect of RAID0
5 was the obvious choice at least that can withstand 1 of 4 failing without loss (but 2 failing kills the whole array) whereas with 10 one can fail, or 2 but not any 2

SQL recommends a RAID 10 Array for high performance databases because it outperforms RAID 5 for that application.
The RAID level you choose will depend on what you plan to use the array for.