| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:47:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > If you rely on raid, and use spinning rust, DON'T buy cheap drives. I |
| 4 |
> > like Seagate, and bought myself Barracudas. Big mistake. Next time |
| 5 |
> > round, I bought Ironwolves. Hopefully that system will soon be up and |
| 6 |
> > running, and I'll see whether that was a good choice :-) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Can you elaborate on what the mistake was? Backblaze hasn't found |
| 9 |
> Seagate to really be any better/worse than anything else. It seems |
| 10 |
> like every vendor has a really bad model every couple of years. Maybe |
| 11 |
> the more expensive drive will last longer, but you're paying a hefty |
| 12 |
> premium. It might be cheaper to just get three drives with 3x |
| 13 |
> redundancy than two super-expensive ones with 2x redundancy. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I know it's anecdotal, and I have somewhat fewer drives than Backblaze, |
| 16 |
but I've found Seagate drives to be unreliable over recent years. They |
| 17 |
were good at replacing them under warranty, but then the replacements |
| 18 |
failed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> The main issues I've seen with RAID are: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 1. Double failures. If your RAID doesn't accommodate double failures |
| 23 |
> (RAID6/etc) then you have to consider the time required to replace a |
| 24 |
> drive and rebuild the array. As arrays get large or if you aren't |
| 25 |
> super-quick with replacements then you have more risk of double |
| 26 |
> failures. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
There's also the extra load on the remaining drives when rebuilding the |
| 29 |
array, at exactly the time you cannot afford another drive to fail. RAID6 |
| 30 |
helps here and, like Mark, I try to run a mixture of drives in an array |
| 31 |
to avoid problems caused by bad models or batches. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
You are a completely unique individual, just like everybody else. |
Archives