On 4/26/2010 11:11 PM, Tim Clewlow wrote:
I don't know what your requirements / levels of paranoia are, but
RAID 5 is
probably better than RAID 6 until you are up to 6 or 7 drives; the
chance of a
double failure in a 5 (or less) drive array is minuscule.
.
I currently have 3 TB of data with another 1TB on its way fairly
soon, so 4 drives will become 5 quite soon. Also, I have read that a
common rating of drive failure is an unrecoverable read rate of 1
bit in 10^14 - that is 1 bit in every 10TB. While doing a rebuild
across 4 or 5 drives that would mean it is likely to hit an
unrecoverable read. With RAID 5 (no redundancy during rebuild due to
failed drive) that would be game over. Is this correct?
Uh. Well, I guess I would ballpark it similarly. Large arrays are
asking for trouble. For serious work, separate out the storage system
from the application as much as possible. Be prepared to spend money.
For DIY, always pair those drives. Consider RAID 10, RAID 50, RAID 60,
etc. Alas, that doubles the number of drives, and intensely decreases
the MTBF, which is the whole outcome you want to avoid.
But you have to start somewhere.
For offline storage, tape is still around...
MAA
I get the feeling some of this is overthinking. Plan ahead, but don't
spend money until you need to.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd7ac0b.9070...@allums.com
