4 ms·
RAID and any other fault-tolerance scheme can not be the only way you protect your data. I have two RAID 10 arrays, one is for active data, one is for backup, a
by leptons 1y ago
RAID and any other fault-tolerance scheme can not be the only way you protect your data. I have two RAID 10 arrays, one is for active data, one is for backup, and the backup system has an LTO tape drive, where I also use PAR parity files on the tape backups. Important stuff is backed-up to multiple tape sets. Both systems are in different buildings, with tapes stored in a third.
My point is, it doesn't much matter what your FS does, so long as you have 3 or more of them.
- zamadatix 1y agoThere is no such thing as a guaranteed data storage system. The only thing you can choose is how reliable is reliable enough (or how reliable you can afford). Parity or RAID can get you more granular reliability increments than straight copies can provide, or even just far greater convenience when you do have copies.
- nullc 1y agoWithout error coding only a perfect channel can give lossless performance. But with error coding even a fairly lossy channel can give performance that is arbitrarily close to lossless, depending only on how much capacity you're willing to waste. As the number of blocks on our storage devices grows their the probability that there is at least one with an error goes up. Even with raid5 the probability that there are two errors in one stripe unit at the same time can become non-negligible. Worse, for raid5/6 normally the system is defendant on the device detecting corruption. When it doesn't, the raid will not only not fix but potentially propagate the corruption to other data. (I understand that ZFS at least can use its internal checksums to handle this case).