Nagered hard drive;'(..
in [Computer]
|
From: Ben C on 23 Jun 2010 03:40 On 2010-06-22, Jon Green <jonsg(a)deadspam.com> wrote: > On 22/06/2010 23:52, Paul Bird wrote: >> Seagate Barracudas have done me well for the last five or six years > > Me three. I populate RAIDs with them. Out of eight drives, I've only > had to replace one. Even that one hadn't broken, but was starting to > raise SMART warnings, so I dropped in a replacement for safety's sake. The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ drives, not 8 identical ones!
From: Andy Burns on 23 Jun 2010 03:56 Ben C wrote: > The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ > drives, not 8 identical ones! Then it operates with the seek speed of the slowest seeking drive, the rpm of the slowest spinning drive and the caching of the smallest cached drive.
From: David WE Roberts on 23 Jun 2010 04:50 "Ben C" <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote in message news:slrni23ego.5ab.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld... > On 2010-06-22, Jon Green <jonsg(a)deadspam.com> wrote: >> On 22/06/2010 23:52, Paul Bird wrote: >>> Seagate Barracudas have done me well for the last five or six years >> >> Me three. I populate RAIDs with them. Out of eight drives, I've only >> had to replace one. Even that one hadn't broken, but was starting to >> raise SMART warnings, so I dropped in a replacement for safety's sake. > > The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ > drives, not 8 identical ones! Citation? The RIAD arrays I have worked with in the past have all had identical drives. This makes spare part holdings much more simple, apart from anything else. Any drive fails and you immediately replace it with another one of the same specification. Why would you want different specification drives? The original point of RAID was to overcome the problems of large amounts of storage where the MTBF of the discs almost guaranteed data loss over time. Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs was impressive in a production environment, apart from the fact that the discs were anything but inexpensive. Cheers Dave R -- No plan survives contact with the enemy. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
From: Man at B&Q on 23 Jun 2010 04:59 On Jun 23, 8:40 am, Ben C <spams...(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2010-06-22, Jon Green <jo...(a)deadspam.com> wrote: > > > On 22/06/2010 23:52, Paul Bird wrote: > >> Seagate Barracudas have done me well for the last five or six years > > > Me three. I populate RAIDs with them. Out of eight drives, I've only > > had to replace one. Even that one hadn't broken, but was starting to > > raise SMART warnings, so I dropped in a replacement for safety's sake. > > The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ > drives, not 8 identical ones! Where did you pick up that little nugget? MBQ
From: Andy Burns on 23 Jun 2010 05:01
[xposted to groups removed by BenC] The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Ben C wrote: > >> The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ >> drives, not 8 identical ones! > > huh? There *is* some logic to building an array with identical drives of different ages, or from different manufacturing batches, you don't want multiple drives to fail at once. In practice it's difficult to acquire/prove such drives, easier to increase resilience through other means such as hot spares, double parity or mirrors of stripes, and non-volatile write caches. |