<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>As I’ve read and understood; it isn’t due to actual functionality though. It is as you say, due mostly to longer rebuild times (indexing a physically larger geometry than the rest of the array members, for a smaller logical geometry) and the risk (rare
IMO) to the rest of the array (as a rebuild will stress the array and could cause other, near-death disks to fail thereby causing the array to fail). It also wastes the extra horsepower of the disk since the existing RAID can’t capitalize on the resources
of the larger disk.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So in a case of, would you go out and buy a new disk that way .... I’d say no; but if that is the result of a covered RMA, I’d say go for it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I’m no diskologist though ... just based on my own experiences of what has worked for me for the last couple of decades ... and I’ve never lost a server ... outside of that one time when my pants pocket snagged the release on the 2nd disk in a R5 on my
way out the door ... bad memories.<br>
<br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">-Ryan</div>
<div><br>
On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Charles Goldsmith <<a href="mailto:wokka@justfamily.org">wokka@justfamily.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Keep in mind, RAID 5 is ok for smaller disks, but larger disks it's no longer recommended, but sadly, the best article about it is from Dell: <a href="http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2012/08/14/new-equallogic-raid-tech-report-considerations-and-best-practices-released">http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2012/08/14/new-equallogic-raid-tech-report-considerations-and-best-practices-released</a>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With bigger disks, it's even said that RAID 6 is no longer good enough, due to large rebuild times in case of a failure. <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805">http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805</a> </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ryan Huff <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:ryanhuff@outlook.com" target="_blank">ryanhuff@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Reto,<br>
<br>
<div>Seek/rpm speeds and media type (flash, sata ... etc) are usually what matter the most for RAID disks. If your only difference is total storage capacity, the bigger disk will usually work just fine, your just gonna waste the additional 154GB of space (because
the RAID will only provision 146GB of that 300GB disk).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just remember on a RAID 5, don’t pull/lose more that 1 disk at a time .... painful lesson long ago I share over beer every now and then.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Ryan</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div><br>
On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Reto Gassmann <<a href="mailto:voip@mrga.ch" target="_blank">voip@mrga.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Hallo </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We have a UCS C210 Server with 10x146 GB Disks. One of the Disks failed and I got a 300 GB replacement Disk from Cisco.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is that a problem if I replace the defect 146 Disk in the RAID 5 with a 300 GB Disk?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks for help</div>
<div dir="auto">Regards Reto</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br>
<span>cisco-voip mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>