Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3BA9FBF21 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:09:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92884-08-2 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:09:40 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC569FB7DB for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:09:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([72.66.0.187]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JIV00IK30RYDV23@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 10:09:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC6B1F816 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id c27rvEJLg3sp for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8A5C1F814; Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:30 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives In-reply-to: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20070530150928.GC1785@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 References: <20070530142556.GB1785@mathom.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/615 X-Sequence-Number: 25005 On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:36:48AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote: >> I don't see how that's better at all; in fact, it reduces to >> exactly the same problem: given two pieces of data which >> disagree, which is right? > >The one that matches the checksum. And you know the checksum is good, how? Mike Stone