| 1 |
Am 03.05.2020 um 23:46 schrieb Caveman Al Toraboran: |
| 2 |
> so, in summary: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> /------------------------------------------------\ |
| 5 |
> | a 5-disk RAID10 is better than a 6-disk RAID10 | |
| 6 |
> | ONLY IF your data is WORTH LESS than 3,524.3 | |
| 7 |
> | bucks. | |
| 8 |
> \------------------------------------------------/ |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> any thoughts? i'm a newbie. i wonder how |
| 11 |
> industry people think? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Don't forget that having more drives increases the odds of a failing |
| 15 |
drive. If you have infinite drives at any given moment infinite drives |
| 16 |
will fail. Anyway I wouldn't know how to calculate this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Most people are limited by money and space. Even if this isn't your |
| 19 |
problem you will always need an additional backup strategy. The hole |
| 20 |
system can fail. |
| 21 |
I run a system with 8 drives where two can fail and they can be hot |
| 22 |
swoped. This is a closed source SAS which I really like except the part |
| 23 |
being closed source. I don't even know what kind of raid is used. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The only person I know who is running a really huge raid ( I guess 2000+ |
| 26 |
drives) is comfortable with some spare drives. His raid did fail an can |
| 27 |
fail. Data will be lost. Everything important has to be stored at a |
| 28 |
secondary location. But they are using the raid to store data for some |
| 29 |
days or weeks when a server is calculating stuff. If the raid fails they |
| 30 |
have to restart the program for the calculation. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Facebook used to store data which is sometimes accessed on raids. Since |
| 33 |
they use energy they stored data which is nearly never accessed on blue |
| 34 |
ray disks. I don't know if they still do. Reading is very slow if a |
| 35 |
mechanical arm first needs to fetch a specific blue ray out of hundreds |
| 36 |
and put in a disk reader but it is very energy efficient. |
Archives