jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Mon Jul 19 13:29:57 CDT 2010
> And did you read the "Update: NetApp has responded. " That would be this: http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/26/netapp-weighs-in-on-disks/ Which validates my decision to go Raid 6 many years ago. Basically I studied all of this stuff about 5 years ago as I was just getting in to this business that is now much of my income. My read was that Raid 1 and 5 were not robust enough for my needs. I have to say that while I have had single drive failures I have never experienced a dual drive failure. Tomorrow is another day however and I do NOT want to wake up to find my arrays gone. The other thing to remember is that the redundancy level can vary depending on what is being stored. My DATA goes on Raid 6. My temp files have no raid at all. My boot and other less sensitive stuff goes on small raid 1 volumes. I am about to build an UnRaid for my massive video / music collection. I currently have no protection on that so if I lose a disk I lose all of that. With Unraid I would have "raid 5 like" storage so that in the event of single drive failure I can still recover. If I do lose it I just re-rip. Not the end of the world but not something I want to do. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com Michael Bahr wrote: > And did you read the "Update: NetApp has responded. " > > RAID 5 today verges on professional malpractice > > Mike... > > >> http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure-experience/ >> >> I had seen this before but it is an interesting read. >> >> -- >> John W. Colby >> www.ColbyConsulting.com >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> > >