Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

I love RAID5. One of the drives in my big array was throwing SMART errors, and all I had to do was go buy another 500G drive, unplug the failing drive, plug in the new one and tell my computer to rebuild the array. Poof.

Current Mood: pleasedpleased

That happens with like 1 in 100 errors. RAID5 is nice and all, but the overhead is a killer when you're doing database transations, and you get better redundancy from RAID 10 or 0+1 (which are pretty much the same).

I've never had a RAID5 set rebuild like *poof*, ever.

Well, okay, actually rebuilding the RAID5 array takes an hour or two but I can use my system just fine in the meanwhile. Mostly I mean it took me about five minutes of effort and no additional effective downtime, and no copying everything off the disk and back onto it and all that, which I'd get if I weren't using some form of redundancy.

You get better redundancy from RAID 10 or 0+1 but you lose a lot more disk for doing that. I've got four 500G disks and I have a 1.5T array. RAID 10/0+1 would only give me 1T of usable disk.

Also, I'm not doing database transactions, this is my desktop workstation's main data disk. So mostly software, documents and pr0n...

I remain pissed at RAID level 5. It knows why.

There are no perfect solutions. But RAID is no longer the mortal enemy of a sysadmin's sanity as it was ten years ago. RAID 5 is good enough for everyday data, but RAID 10 is the gold standard with critical data and heavy throughput.

Love the icon.

RAID5 said to tell you that there are two sides to every story, and there was that time wait why am I intermediating this? Why don't you two just talk for once?

RAID 5 kills hardware bugs. Dead.
(Software bugs often require restoring from backups.)