interesting article comparing Apple SSD drives
From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Robert Gezelter
Sent: Friday, November 09,[masked]:44 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: RE: [newtech-1] SSD based NAS solution
Laird, Calvin, and Paul,
It is well-known that RAID5, particularly rebuilds, can result in drive failures.
If one considers MTBF as a function of number of operations (rather than number of "running hours") this should not be surprising.
RAID5 uses an extra volume as for parity. Thus, each and every time that one of the other volumes is written to, the parity volume must be updated. This results in a very high usage rate for the parity disk, and the resulting wear and tear leading to failure.
When it was first proposed, RAID5 made more economic sense. Today, in many situations, it is far better to use mirroring configurations (so-called "RAID 0+1") to achieve performance and redundancy in many configurations.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc....
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [newtech-1] SSD based NAS solution
> From: Laird Popkin <[address removed]>
> Date: Fri, November 09,[masked]:45 am
> To: [address removed]
> I'll second this - I've done a lot of raid set rebuilds, and had a few
> double failures.
> So for critical systems (databases, etc.), running with enough
> redundancy to survive two drive failures is a great idea. My guess
> (and I was in the hard drive business for a few years) is that the
> rebuild process puts a high load of stress on the rest of the drives,
> making it more likely that another drive fails during the rebuild. On
> top of that, if all of the drives are the same model and age they are
> more likely to fail for the same reasons at around the same time, if there's a mechanical cause of failure.
> Even if that's not the case, rebuild times for large drive arrays
> built out of big, slow disks can be *days* during which you're running
> with no redundancy, which is dangerous.
> Drobo supports that as an option, which they call "Dual Disk Redundancy".
> If you have one of their larger units (e.g. the 8 bay Drobo Pro)
> you're only spending two drives to protect 6, which seems like a
> pretty reasonable overhead to secure your data. In a smaller, four
> drive unit, you'd be using two drives to protect two drives, which
> would work, technically, but seems inefficient since you're wasting a lot of disk space.
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:18 PM, paul <[address removed]> wrote:
> > Calvin,
> > How many RIAD5 systems do you operate? In my experience with dozens
> > of RAID5, 6 and 10 subsystems, when a drive fails on a subsystem
> > there's a great probability of a second drive failure during the
> > rebuild process. I have experienced such failures multiple times in
> > the last few years. Have you considered RAID6 or 10 to lower the
> > risk of data loss in a worst case situation.
> > Paul Yurt
> > Inventor / Systems Engineer / Media Technologist [address removed]
> > 310~[masked]
> *Laird Popkin | Executive Director, Architecture*
> *KAPLAN TECHNOLOGY*
> Kaplan, Inc. | 6301 Kaplan University Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL
> tel [masked] | email [address removed]
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed]) http://www.meetup... This message was sent by Robert Gezelter ([address removed]) from NY Tech Meetup.
To learn more about Robert Gezelter, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup...
Set my mailing list to email me
As they are sent
In one daily email
Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]