I've seen one URE fail in a raid 5 resilvering process, years ago on a DG system. Had to rebuild and restore from backup, fun times.
I agree Ryan, on a TRC system and RMA a drive, you stick with it. >From my reading on TRC, you can rebuild as a RAID 10 and get faster speeds, but you lose some space in the process. On my personal systems, I'm using RAID 10 everywhere. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Ryan Huff <ryanh...@outlook.com> wrote: > As I’ve read and understood; it isn’t due to actual functionality though. > It is as you say, due mostly to longer rebuild times (indexing a physically > larger geometry than the rest of the array members, for a smaller logical > geometry) and the risk (rare IMO) to the rest of the array (as a rebuild > will stress the array and could cause other, near-death disks to fail > thereby causing the array to fail). It also wastes the extra horsepower of > the disk since the existing RAID can’t capitalize on the resources of the > larger disk. > > So in a case of, would you go out and buy a new disk that way .... I’d say > no; but if that is the result of a covered RMA, I’d say go for it. > > I’m no diskologist though ... just based on my own experiences of what has > worked for me for the last couple of decades ... and I’ve never lost a > server ... outside of that one time when my pants pocket snagged the > release on the 2nd disk in a R5 on my way out the door ... bad memories. > > -Ryan > > On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wo...@justfamily.org> > wrote: > > Keep in mind, RAID 5 is ok for smaller disks, but larger disks it's no > longer recommended, but sadly, the best article about it is from Dell: > http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2012/08/14/ > new-equallogic-raid-tech-report-considerations-and-best-practices-released > > With bigger disks, it's even said that RAID 6 is no longer good enough, > due to large rebuild times in case of a failure. http://www.zdnet. > com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805 > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ryan Huff <ryanh...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> Reto, >> >> Seek/rpm speeds and media type (flash, sata ... etc) are usually what >> matter the most for RAID disks. If your only difference is total storage >> capacity, the bigger disk will usually work just fine, your just gonna >> waste the additional 154GB of space (because the RAID will only provision >> 146GB of that 300GB disk). >> >> Just remember on a RAID 5, don’t pull/lose more that 1 disk at a time >> .... painful lesson long ago I share over beer every now and then. >> >> -Ryan >> >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Reto Gassmann <v...@mrga.ch> wrote: >> >> Hallo >> >> We have a UCS C210 Server with 10x146 GB Disks. One of the Disks failed >> and I got a 300 GB replacement Disk from Cisco. >> >> Is that a problem if I replace the defect 146 Disk in the RAID 5 with a >> 300 GB Disk? >> >> Thanks for help >> Regards Reto >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
