RAID 5 or 10?
Here's my handy graph of why RAID 5/6 can suck it up on write performance...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
John773 wrote: gsaunders wrote: Just an additional note... Even with RAID 10 you could possible lose a minimum of two drives if part of same mirror and the array will fail and you are just as screwed...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
gsaunders wrote: Plus I had someone tell me they thought half the drives could fail and you would be OK and I had to remind them if out of those half there were NOT two from the same mirror then yes,...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jplevel wrote: my experience is that growing arrays are a pain in the ass. I added a few drives to my SAN and it took weeks to grow the array. When setting up a device it is always important to take...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jhuscott wrote: jplevel wrote: my experience is that growing arrays are a pain in the ass. I added a few drives to my SAN and it took weeks to grow the array. When setting up a device it is always...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
Scott Alan Miller wrote: jhuscott wrote: jplevel wrote: my experience is that growing arrays are a pain in the ass. I added a few drives to my SAN and it took weeks to grow the array. When setting up...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
One other thing I wanted to note: to double check whether you are encountering bit-rot or flaky drives, you can always 'scrub' the pool. This checksums your data against what is stored on disk, and if...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
Well, that's apparently exactly how DELL/LSI expand their RAID 10s. So that's not unique to ZFS.http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/261243-raid-10-how-many-spans-should-i-use?page=3
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
John White wrote: Well, that's apparently exactly how DELL/LSI expand their RAID 10s. So that's not unique to...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jhuscott wrote: Scott Alan Miller wrote: jhuscott wrote: jplevel wrote: my experience is that growing arrays are a pain in the ass. I added a few drives to my SAN and it took weeks to grow the array....
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jhuscott wrote: John White wrote: Well, that's apparently exactly how DELL/LSI expand their RAID 10s. So that's not unique to...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
John773 wrote: RAID 10 isn't impacted by a URE in the same way a RAID 5 is. On a RAID 10 The URE will just rot that single bit (Which then NTFS VSS or whatever higher level scrubbing can figure out,...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
Caleb44 wrote: 2. To rephrase for clarity. Is there any controller manufacture that would fail the entire RAID10 array when a URE is encountered during a rebuild, instead of just rotting that single...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
Caleb44 wrote: 1. Is this how a RAID10 Rebuild URE is handled by all controller manufactures? It's that RAID itself is different when doing mirroring vs. parity. When mirroring, UREs don't matter so...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
To your point, Scott, the amount of data lost is much less under RAID 10 - a single drive's worth, as compared to an 8 drive RAID 6 array where you'd lose up to 5 drives worth of data depending on how...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jhuscott wrote: To your point, Scott, the amount of data lost is much less under RAID 10 - a single drive's worth... No, just a single file. No drive is lost. There is zero impact to the array.
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jhuscott wrote: ... as compared to an 8 drive RAID 6 array where you'd lose up to 5 drives worth of data depending on how much data was stored on that array. UREs either do nothing at the array level...
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
jhuscott wrote: So then, I take it whichever controller or drives you are using allow you to specifically ignore UREs? It's not a function of the drives or the controller.
View ArticleRAID 5 or 10?
Scott Alan Miller wrote: Caleb44 wrote: 1. Is this how a RAID10 Rebuild URE is handled by all controller manufactures? It's that RAID itself is different when doing mirroring vs. parity. When...
View Article
