6 ms·
RAIDs are in place to for your guaranteed uptime in the SLA. With the current storage density RAID5/6 is probably more fragile than single disks because UREs ar
by Laforet 11y ago
RAIDs are in place to for your guaranteed uptime in the SLA. With the current storage density RAID5/6 is probably more fragile than single disks because UREs are very likely during a rebuild. Nonetheless having a degraded array is probably better than having an offline system and it will buy you some time to migrate. Mirrors are ideal, but it is hard to justify the upfront cost.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoFor small home machines, the storage cost is minimal. All my home machines are mirrored, for around $100 each. Its saved me several times.
- cerberusss 11y agoI've never understood this. At home, you don't need uptime, thus you're much better off with a real offline backup instead of a mirror.
- yellowapple 11y agoYou don't need uptime, but it's nice to have. Repairing a degraded mirror takes a lot less time than restoring from a backup in the vast majority of cases.
- yellowapple 11y agoIf you're trying to maintain guaranteed uptime, you're probably better off with machine-level redundancy rather than disk-level redundancy. > Mirrors are ideal, but it is hard to justify the upfront cost. The upfront cost of redundant backups can also be high, but that doesn't mean one should forego them (unless their data isn't worth it, in which case, why bother collecting it?). Going cheap on things is fine in the home computing realm, but once you're in the business realm, going cheap almost inevitably becomes more expensive in the long run.