| 1 |
Mark Knecht, mused, then expounded: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I agree that RAID5 gives you an opportunity to get things fixed, but |
| 5 |
> there are folks who lose a disk in a RAID5, start the rebuild, and |
| 6 |
> then lose a second disk during the rebuild. That was my main reason to |
| 7 |
> go to RAID6. Not that I would ever run the array degraded but that I |
| 8 |
> could still tolerate a second loss while the rebuild was happening and |
| 9 |
> hopefully get by. That was similar to my old 3-disk RAID1 where I'd |
| 10 |
> have to lose all 3 disks to be out of business. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If the drives in the RAID came from the same build lot, the chances of |
| 14 |
multi-drive failure are fairly high, if one fails. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I've had 3 out of four drives, from the same lot build, fail at the same |
| 17 |
time. I've had others never fail. And a few that fail over time where |
| 18 |
others from the same lot failed within a month of the first failure. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Bob |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
- |
Archives