• 9point6English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    11 days ago
    link
    fedilink

    I guess you’re expected to set those up in a RAID 5 or 6 (or similar) setup to have redundancy in case of failure.

    Rebuilding after a failure would be a few days of squeaky bum time though.

    • SkydancerEnglish
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      11 days ago
      edit-2
      11 days ago
      link
      fedilink

      Absolutely not. At those densities, the write speed isn’t high enough to trust to RAID 5 or 6, particularly on a new system with drives from the same manufacturing batch (which may fail around the same time). You’d be looking at a RAID 10 or even a variant with more than two drives per mirror. Regardless of RAID level, at least a couple should be reserved as hot spares as well.

      EDIT: RAID 10 doesn’t necessarily rebuild any faster than RAID 5/6, but the write speed is relevant because it determines the total time to rebuild. That determines the likelihood that another drive in the array fails (more likely during a rebuild due to added drive stress). with RAID 10, it’s less likely the drive will be in the same span. Regardless, it’s always worth restating that RAID is no substitute for your 3-2-1 backups.

      • femtechEnglish
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        11 days ago
        link
        fedilink

        Yeah I have 6 14tb drives in raid 10, I’ll get 2 more if i need it.

    • InverseParallaxEnglish
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      11 days ago
      link
      fedilink

      At raid6, rebuilds are 4.2 roentgens, not great but they’re not horrible. Keep old backups.but the data isn’t irreplaceable.

      Raid5 is suicide if you care about your data.