4 ms·
Yes, but what the parent comment is saying is that simple replication can replace the need for parity arrays entirely.
by prussian 6y ago
Yes, but what the parent comment is saying is that simple replication can replace the need for parity arrays entirely.
- juskrey 6y agoExactly. One doesn't have to be superhuman to set up modern DB replication and manage its failure modes. Even if you need to salvage broken HDD, it's a pretty straightforward task with high rate of success.
- Rychard 6y agoIn the sense that your backups are a surviving copy of your data, sure. That said, an argument such as "system is down while we restore from backup; some recent data may be lost" will not go over as well as "the system remains available, but performance will be negatively impacted while the array rebuilds; no data has been lost at this time". In the former, you're in crisis mode. In the latter, you'll probably be under some stress, but you're still in the clear. Edit: But we're all on the same page when it comes to backups. They're a necessity.
- 411111111111111 6y agoI'm pretty sure he's thinking more about distributed filesystems vs raids than what you're talking about. I.e. ceph with pods distributed over a bunch of disks without a raid
- SlowRobotAhead 6y ago> that simple replication can replace the need for parity arrays entirely. Not if you need speed it doesn’t.