On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:18:48AM -0700, Joerg Bashir wrote: > With disks of this size, I have to chime in against RAID5 in any way. It is > far too likely to lose a sector on two disks, and even if you had a hot > spare to immediately start a rebuild onto, I've seen too many RAID5 arrays > (especially SATA/PATA) go south.
I have no idea what kinds of disks you use but I haven't seen drives fail very often. Well not since I stopped dealing with IBM/Seagate SCSI drives. How about raid6 then? > The cost of mirroring the storage initially (either RAID1 or via rsync to a > paired machine) will be dwarfed by what you spend on hosting/bandwidth/power > and god forbid losing a R5 array. > > Also, when drives do go bad, not having to sift through parity to find > what's recoverable is priceless. > > I might be Jaded, every day when I show up to work at least 1 drive has gone > bad, sometimes 3. On this scale what in a previous life seemed > statistically insignificant suddenly has real meaning. How many thousands of machines do you deal with? > 2 boxes with 4x500GB disks should cost close to $3K. Mirror the data, the > services, etc... and sleep easy at night. And how do you keep machines mirrored constantly? Having raid5 or 6 at least means a single disk failure won't take down the machine and force you to start up somewhere else. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
