Ned Harvey noted: > It's interesting that drive reliability is on your radar, you > perceive SSD as less reliable (despite how this conversation > started with your HDD's dying in only 1 year), you're using > md devices, and haven't gone to zfs yet... All of these are > opposite me.
> I think you're being conservative, sticking with HDD's and > old software raid, thinking that you're gaining reliability, > but I think you're actually reducing both your reliability > and performance as a result. At work I haven't purchased or specified physical data center hardware since, oh, 2010. I built my home servers starting in 1992 and set up the current software-RAID system around 2003 when a hardware RAID controller went obsolete on me. All your points above are well-taken, and if I were setting all this up from scratch I'd be doing it with btrfs or ZFS. The only time I have to pay attention to this is when a piece of hardware dies, and I posted this as a cautionary note to others like me who have to keep legacy setups like this alive for a while longer (motivated, probably like me, by the need to spend time on other things). I'll redesign this from scratch when SSDs are compellingly low-priced. Right now that's not really the case; for my home media server it makes little sense to blow $8000 on SSDs just to save myself from swapping a drive once every couple of years (which is how things were until Seagate went off the deep end). When you mentioned "HDDs dying in only 1 year", I had a laugh: in my notes from a year ago, I wrote that one of these damn Seagate 3TB units failed 380 days after I bought it, after two weeks of increasing trouble with bad blocks. Its warranty had expired at 365 days. :-( I don't know what year I'll go SSD but I do know this: I will never have to buy Seagate again. Thank goodness. -rich _______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [email protected] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
