On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 04:33:23PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On 14/10/13 09:06, Mark Rogers wrote:
If I could, I would buy disks at half the price that failed twice as often and rotate them more frequently. Although in that case I don't think I'd consider RAID5 to be a sufficient level of redundancy.
Funny, I'd rather have the opposite, even with redundancy in my array. :D
Unfortunately because drive sizes have increased faster than the uncorrected read error rate, the statistical likelihood of recovering completely from a failed drive when you have member sizes of say 2TB is now so low there is almost no point counting RAID 5 as fault tolerant.
Pretty much. I build storage (SANs) for a living and our most recent software release no longer allows RAID 5 on the large SATA drives, due to the increased risk of a double disk failure during rebuild. It's worth noting the same applies to a double disk RAID 1 set as well.
(I think I've said this here before, but it's worth mentioning again.)
J.