3 ms·
I can't comprehend trusting data to a (single) 30TB SSD or even 10TB SSDs given the regularly reported failure modes of "It's not a drive anymore." Perhaps it'
by fencepost 11y ago
I can't comprehend trusting data to a (single) 30TB SSD or even 10TB SSDs given the regularly reported failure modes of "It's not a drive anymore."
Perhaps it's because I'm not doing anything where massive storage is a requirement, but having data striped in RAID6 makes me happy. I'd be happy to use SSD for the underlying medium, but I want something that's less prone to single points of failure. Backups are all well and good, but what's the interface speed of a drive like that? How long to restore a 20+TB backup?
- mmebane 11y agoAt least with SSDs, there's much less worry about your RAID 5/6 array self-destructing while it's failing over to a hot spare. With hard drives of that size, I'd only feel comfortable with full mirroring.
- simplexion 11y agoWho in their right mind still uses RAID5 with spinning disks in a production system? That is like not wearing a seatbelt and driving above speed limits constantly.
- mirimir 11y agoNobody? But RAID6 is still popular, among crazier folk. And RAID6 with SSDs screams. And rebuilds fast.
- deeviant 11y agoWhat do you do? mirror every drive?
- simplexion 11y agoOBR10
- deeviant 11y agoThanks, it was an honest question. I'll look into OBR10. Currently I'm at a small-ish startup and I have ~150 TB of data on a synology nas. It's in 2 raid groups, both raid 6. Seemed safe enough. edit Ah, right. From some reason I didn't make the connection that raid 10 was raid 0+1, it doesn't work for us simple because of the sheer amount of data we need to store. Also, although it would be a real bitch if we lost everything(like set us back a week+), most of the data is derived data, and we have all the raw data in cold storage, so we could eventually rebuild the array from scratch.