| 1 |
On 21/12/22 14:19, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:53:03AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote: |
| 5 |
>> ... |
| 6 |
> In layman’s term, a stripe of mirrors. Raid-1 is the mirror, Raid-0 a (JBOD) |
| 7 |
> pool. So mirror + pool = mirrorpool, hence the 1+0 → 10. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> ... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I tend to use older drives that have led a hard life - so failure |
| 12 |
happens and I have to be prepared for it (by having good backups!) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I have found mirrors to be problematic - sometimes when one drive |
| 15 |
fails, it causes a cascade of fails that includes the data on the |
| 16 |
mirror. With raid-10, its worse (even more fragile). When I eventually |
| 17 |
moved away from raid for my main data store it was because of a |
| 18 |
catastrophic failure of a bcache ssd fronting one of the mirrors causing |
| 19 |
all data to be lost - somewhat self-caused by using bcache to try and |
| 20 |
get some more speed out of the system, but as a RAID 10 with 4 HDD |
| 21 |
fronted by 4x SSD it should have survived ... In the end, I realised |
| 22 |
that raided data gave me a small speedup with little or no benefit as |
| 23 |
regards reliable data storage. I currently have one linux raid 10 using |
| 24 |
4xSSD's that has suffered one SSD abrupt failure and survived - which I |
| 25 |
regard as "being lucky". SSD's are an issue as they usually fail |
| 26 |
abruptly without warning whereas spinning rust usually gives some warning. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I've never tried RAID-6 as it was still considered buggy/risky at the time. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No matter what storage system you use, offline backups are better - raid |
| 31 |
is NOT a viable backup. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Fun, innit? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
YEP! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
BillK |
Archives