I always like to have a hot spare.  But not having a hot spare might be okay if 
they have a cold spare on hand and are willing to run with reduced redundancy 
until it can be installed.

Part of the motivation for RAID 6 is the probability of errors occurring during 
a RAID 5 rebuild.  The smaller size and higher speed of the SSDs might reduce 
that risk to an acceptable level (dunno -- I haven't run the number and haven't 
stumbled across any articles discussing it).


From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of J- P
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 6:11 AM
To: NT
Subject: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016

So I inherited this server , (sitting on site since February) low and behold 
when I fire it up it turns out that whoever set it up used all 8 discs in a 
raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb enterprise ssd's ) but still raid 5? and no 
hot spare?

I'm trying to figure what the purpose of this server is/was, but aside from a 
losing some space wouldn't a  raid 6 and hot spare make MUCH more sense?

I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking new r730 
with 96gb of ram

Reply via email to