As the drives in question are SSDs, they will rebuild faster than regular SATA or SAS drives. Still, RAID6 is better than RAID5 for timely recovery due to the above… Regards,
ASB http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker Providing Expert Technology Consulting Services for the SMB market… GPG:860D 40A1 4DA5 3AE1 B052 8F9F 07A1 F9D6 A549 8842 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 1:26 PM, Mark Gottschalk [email protected] wrote: http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/ 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: https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/262196-one-big-raid-10-the-new-standard-in-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. -- Mark From:J- P <[email protected]> To:NT <[email protected]> Date:09/16/2016 06:18 AM Subject:[NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016 Sent by:<[email protected]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
