2 ms·
Oh sure, it's a big linear streaming read/write - the issue is that if you're taking a 8, 12, 15, etc. hour window to rebuild, there's a fairly high chance of s
by fiatmoney 12y ago
Oh sure, it's a big linear streaming read/write - the issue is that if you're taking a 8, 12, 15, etc. hour window to rebuild, there's a fairly high chance of something else going wrong. Particularly because you have to worry that, eg, your flaky power source has been shortening drive lifetimes, that's why you saw the failure within the expected lifetime of the drive, and that's why the another one is going to die in hour 14 of your rebuild.
Of course, that's in the context of an actual RAID array (or ZFS pool, etc.) - if you've got a replication strategy that spreads multiple entire copies over multiple systems, you're less vulnerable and these kinds of disks are a good choice.
- the8472 12y agoWell, that sounds more like worrying about a single point of failure (e.g. that power source that can take out several drives at once) than what the redundancy is designed to protect against, i.e. uncorrelated failures of one of the drives in the array. Of course having no redundancy at all during a rebuild that takes more than a negligible amount of time is still worrisome, but that's why we have multiple-redundancy raid schemes. But you still have to untangle your concerns. A single point (or cause) of failure has to be handled differently than increasing probabilities of encountering independent UREs on separate drives during rebuild.