Re: [OT] 8-15 TB storage: any recommendations?

[Thomas Harold <thomas-lists@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/7/2010 12:28 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>>> I also heard that disks above 1TB might have reliability issues.
>>> Maybe it changed since then...
>>>
>>
>> I remember rumors about the early 2TB Seagates.
>>
>> Personally, I won't RAID SATA drives over 500GB unless they're
>> enterprise-level ones with the limits on how long before the drive
>> reports a problem back to the host when it has a read error.
>>
>> Which should also take care of the reliability issue to a large degree.
>
> An often overlooked issue is the rebuild time with Linux software raid and
> all hw raid controllers I have seen. On large drives the times are so long
> as a result of the sheer size, if the array is degraded you are exposed during
> the rebuild. ZFS's resilver has this addressed as good as you can by only copying
> actual data.
>
> With this in mind, it's wise to consider how you develop the redundancy into
> the solution...

Yah, RAID-5 is a bad idea anymore with the large drive sizes.  RAID-6 or 
RAID-10 is a far better choice.

I prefer RAID-10 because the rebuild time is based on the size of a 
drive pair, not the entire array.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos