Agreed. While there are better options than RAID5 for specific configurations, RAID5 is by no means obsolete -- even with today's huge drive sizes...
* * *ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market… * On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Steven Peck <sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > That article seems over the top. Not to mention that RIAD 6 isn't new, > Compaq had that as an option way before HP bought them. As to having to > wait 2 weeks, well, that's why we buy the more expensive options with > hardware due to the warrentee program. > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Mike Hoffman <m...@drumbrae.net> wrote: > >> Great articles. >> I have been sceptical of Raid5 for main years after an incident where I >> spent 2 weeks waiting on a spare controller being sourced while an array was >> down and 400+ people were asking me when it would be fixed about twice a >> day!! >> In the SBS case it was a Raid1 Pair. I now would much rather put in 4 >> mirrored pairs than a RAID5. Putting in faster drives or SSD is a much >> simpler option. Anyone can install a RAID5 set, but it takes a lot of work >> to recover data from one. >> It's like anything in IT, if you put all your eggs in one basket then you >> need to protect that basket. If your budget cannot afford to protect that >> basket then you need to mitigate or accept the risk. >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:angu...@geoapps.com] >> Sent: 08 October 2011 05:14 >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Server gets sloooower the longer it stays up >> >> On 5 Oct 2011 at 11:44, Mike Hoffman wrote: >> >> > I´ve just had a similar thing with an SBS 2008 box, and discovered >> the >> > Raid drives had issues. After replacing one drive the rebuild stuck >> at >> > 99.83% and after that every 6-8 hours the network cards stopped and >> the >> > system just froze. Now the box is virtual and running fine since. >> >> Related story .... >> >> Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009 | ZDNet >> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162 >> >> Due to the size of modern drives, one can apparently EXPECT a read-failure >> during a RAID-5 rebuild, so RAID 5 is no longer reliable enough. With 120GB >> drives it was fine. With terabyte drives it isn't. >> >> RAID5 versus RAID10 (or even RAID3 or RAID4) >> "To put things into perspective: If a drive costs $1000US (and most are >> far less expensive than that) then switching from a 4 pair RAID10 array >> to >> a 5 drive RAID5 array will save 3 drives or $3000US. What is the cost >> of >> overtime, wear and tear on the technicians, DBAs, managers, and >> customers >> of even a recovery scare? What is the cost of reduced performance and >> possibly reduced customer satisfaction? Finally what is the cost of >> lost >> business if data is unrecoverable? I maintain that the drives are FAR >> cheaper! Hence my mantra: NO RAID5! NO RAID5! NO RAID5! NO RAID5! NO >> RAID5! NO RAID5! NO RAID5!" >> http://miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt >> >> >> -- >> Angus Scott-Fleming >> GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona >> 1-520-290-5038 >> Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/ >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
