-Original Message-
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of Kurt Buff
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:04 AM
To: ntsysadm <ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016
8 x 500gb = 4tb, raw.
RAID5 = 3.5 raw
RAID6 or
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
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
adm@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016
8 x 500gb = 4tb, raw.
RAID5 = 3.5 raw
RAID6 or RAID5 + hot spare = 3tb raw
Space dwindles quickly when reserving disks for failover/availability.
How many VMs? What apps running on them?
It's certainly going to be a screaming machine, rega
8 x 500gb = 4tb, raw.
RAID5 = 3.5 raw
RAID6 or RAID5 + hot spare = 3tb raw
Space dwindles quickly when reserving disks for failover/availability.
How many VMs? What apps running on them?
It's certainly going to be a screaming machine, regardless - depending
on type and how many procs are in it,
5 matches
Mail list logo