It claims a 50% chance of rebuild failure in a RAID5 array with 7 1-TB
drives. Your disks are only 500GB, but there are 8 of them. Someone else
will have to do the math on that. The consensus starting several years
ago (the article is from 2009) is that RAID 5 is dead due to the very high
chance (approaching 100% with large drives) of a URE during rebuild, thus
rendering a RAID 5 array a false sense of security and not actually
robust/redundant at all.
Another article about OBR10 (one big raid 10) being the current standard
for server storage:
There are always exceptions, and yours could justifiably be one of them.
Don't know and don't want to debate it (plenty of that in the SpiceWorks
comments). Just sending some info I was previously aware of.
From: J- P <jnat...@hotmail.com>
To: NT <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/16/2016 06:18 AM
Subject: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016
Sent by: <listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>
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
I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking new
r730 with 96gb of ram