3 ms·
What I have done, and will continue to recommend, is to not have all identical SSDs in a RAID - they should be a mix of part number or age.
by sn 5y ago
What I have done, and will continue to recommend, is to not have all identical SSDs in a RAID - they should be a mix of part number or age.
- csdvrx 5y agoThis, so much. At a previous company, mixing manufacturers (not brands) was a policy: WD or Sandisk -> Hynix or Toshiba, etc. Funny enough, this plays very well with RAID10: with each leg made of 2 different brands, a firmware failure will not affect you.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- UI_at_80x24 5y agoWhich is the same advice given for disk-based RAID arrays. It is good advice and should be followed. Just back sure they all use the same block size.
- sennight 5y agoThis is what lot numbers are for, the tracking (and in this case: leveraging) of variability between production runs. Spread multiple lots over more than one storage array and you're good to go.
- wtallis 5y agoMultiple lot numbers won't save you from firmware bugs.
- sennight 5y agoNeither will brand diversification, where they can not only independently implement their own vision of what a data eating binary blob should look like - they can also converge onto a single controller source. Wanna run down that potential failure mode on a dozen different drives, or just one?
- vernie 5y agoIsn't this the same advice with HDDs?
- etbe 5y agoSometimes that's a good idea, sometimes it might make things worse. A previous server that had a RAID-1 of SSDs was limited by SSD write speed. As the SSDs got old the write speed dropped significantly. If I had 2 servers that each had the same brand of SSDs then one server would need both SSDs replaced while if I had 2 servers with different brands then each server would need a single SSD replaced which would have been more hassle.