>Never said RAID was best, just that it has it's place. Tom's argument >previously was that because of HD's high MTBF RAID was useless, this new >article that came up said RAID was useless because of low MTBF.
I think you should reread the "2009" article more carefully. That article was not about MTBFs. It was about the probability of errors vs the number of bytes on the drive. As the number of bytes increases the probability of an error increases. The author said that that probability of 1 error would soon approach 100%. Under those condtions RAID would fail to rebuild a bad drive. Hence a RAID set would be no more secure than a single drive and it would be less reliable because the probability of something going wrong on a RAID set is higher than the probability of a single drive failing. Probability lesson (simplified but accurate): 1) The non-RAID bet: I flip a coin. Heads you lose. 2) The RAID bet: I flip 7 coins. If any one is heads, you lose. Do you want to take bet 1 or 2? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
