1 |
Am Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:53:03AM +0000 schrieb Wols Lists: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 21/12/2022 02:47, Dale wrote: |
4 |
> > I think if I can hold out a little while, something really nice is going |
5 |
> > to come along. It seems there is a good bit of interest in having a |
6 |
> > Raspberry Pi NAS that gives really good performance. I'm talking a NAS |
7 |
> > that is about the same speed as a internal drive. Plus the ability to |
8 |
> > use RAID and such. I'd like to have a 6 bay with 6 drives setup in |
9 |
> > pairs for redundancy. I can't recall what number RAID that is. |
10 |
> > Basically, if one drive fails, another copy still exists. Of course, |
11 |
> > two independent NASs would be better in my opinion. Still, any of this |
12 |
> > is progress. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> That's called either Raid-10 (linux), or Raid-1+0 (elsewhere). Note that 1+0 |
15 |
> is often called 10, but linux-10 is slightly different. |
16 |
|
17 |
In layman’s term, a stripe of mirrors. Raid-1 is the mirror, Raid-0 a (JBOD) |
18 |
pool. So mirror + pool = mirrorpool, hence the 1+0 → 10. |
19 |
|
20 |
> I'd personally be inclined to go for raid-6. That's 4 data drives, 2 parity |
21 |
> (so you could have an "any two" drive failure and still recover). |
22 |
> A two-copy 10 or 1+0 is vulnerable to a two-drive failure. A three-copy is |
23 |
> vulnerable to a three-drive failure. |
24 |
|
25 |
At first, I had only two drives in my 4-bay NAS, which were of course set up |
26 |
as a mirror. After a year, when it became full, I bought the second pair of |
27 |
drives and had long deliberations by then, what to choose. I went for raid-6 |
28 |
(or RaidZ2 in ZFS parlance). With only four disks, it has the same net |
29 |
capacity as a pair of mirrors, but at the advantage that *any* two drives |
30 |
may fail, not just two particular ones. A raid of mirrors has performance |
31 |
benefits over a parity raid, but who cares for a simple Gbit storage device. |
32 |
|
33 |
With increasing number of disks, a mirror setup is at a disadvantage with |
34 |
storage efficiency – it’s always 50 % or less, if you mirror over more than |
35 |
two disks. But with only four disks, that was irrelevant in my case. On the |
36 |
plus-side, each mirror can have a different physical disk size, so you can |
37 |
more easily mix’n’match what you got lying around, or do upgrades in smaller |
38 |
increments. |
39 |
|
40 |
If I wanted to increase my capacity, I’d have to replace *all* drives with |
41 |
bigger ones. With a mirror, only the drives in one of the mirrors need |
42 |
replacing. And the rebuild process would be quicker and less painful, as |
43 |
each drive will only be read once to rebuild its partner, and there is no |
44 |
parity calculation involved. In a RAID, each drive is replaced one by one, |
45 |
and each replacement requires a full read of all drives’ payload. With older |
46 |
drives, this is cause for some concern whether the disks may survive that. |
47 |
That’s why, with increasing disk capacities, raid-5 is said to be obsolete. |
48 |
Because if another drive fails during rebuild, you are officially screwed. |
49 |
|
50 |
Fun, innit? |
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ |
54 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. |
55 |
|
56 |
The boss is a human just like everyone else, he just doesn’t know. |