| 1 |
On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going |
| 3 |
> to come along. It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a |
| 4 |
> Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance. I'm talking a NAS |
| 5 |
> that is about the same speed as a internal drive. Plus the ability to |
| 6 |
> use RAID and such. I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in |
| 7 |
> pairs for redundancy. I can't recall what number RAID that is. |
| 8 |
> Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists. Of course, |
| 9 |
> two independent NASs would be better in my opinion. Still, any of this |
| 10 |
> is progress. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note that |
| 13 |
1+0 is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'd personally be inclined to go for raid-6. That's 4 data drives, 2 |
| 16 |
parity (so you could have an "any two" drive failure and still recover). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A two-copy 10 or 1+0 is vulnerable to a two-drive failure. A three-copy |
| 19 |
is vulnerable to a three-drive failure. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In other words, a two-copy raid-10 might be taken out by a failure that |
| 22 |
a raid-6 will survive. A three-copy raid-10 might be taken out by a |
| 23 |
failure that will take out a raid-6. Choose your poison :-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
Wol |
Archives