Scatology aside, that is correct, and software RAID doesn't
particularly require anything in the way of high quality disks. In fact,
for a given load, RAID4 and above will stress each individual drive less
than a single drive attempting to deliver the same data rate. On the
other hand, until somewhat recently, the vast majority of people
implementing RAID arrays have been people who require both high
performance and high reliability as much or more than large amounts of
storage, and for a business, spending an extra few thousand dollars for
enterprise quality drives is of little consequence compared to risking
the data to even a tiny extent. In addition, there are some (high end)
drive controllers that just refuse to play nicely with low cost drives.
I have several RAID arrays here, none of them with enterprise class
drives, and while I have had my share of drive failures, I haven't had
any unusual problems with any of my arrays except those I caused
myself. Let's not talk about those, OK?
On 3/9/2019 4:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.03.19 um 23:32 schrieb Wols Lists:
Well, my first take on that is that they are NOT raid-quality drives!!!
when i hear such shit i frankly could puke!
the original meaning of RAID was "redundant array of inexpensive disks"
and when i need to buy "enterprise disks" i can also buy some commercial
storage at the same time
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
