• 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    I guess you’re expected to set those up in a RAID 5 or 6 (or similar) setup to have redundancy in case of failure.

    Rebuilding after a failure would be a few days of squeaky bum time though.

    • Skydancer@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Absolutely not. At those densities, the write speed isn’t high enough to trust to RAID 5 or 6, particularly on a new system with drives from the same manufacturing batch (which may fail around the same time). You’d be looking at a RAID 10 or even a variant with more than two drives per mirror. Regardless of RAID level, at least a couple should be reserved as hot spares as well.

      EDIT: RAID 10 doesn’t necessarily rebuild any faster than RAID 5/6, but the write speed is relevant because it determines the total time to rebuild. That determines the likelihood that another drive in the array fails (more likely during a rebuild due to added drive stress). with RAID 10, it’s less likely the drive will be in the same span. Regardless, it’s always worth restating that RAID is no substitute for your 3-2-1 backups.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      At raid6, rebuilds are 4.2 roentgens, not great but they’re not horrible. Keep old backups.but the data isn’t irreplaceable.

      Raid5 is suicide if you care about your data.