RAID 5 Problems
http://www.baarf.com/ permalinkembedsavegive gold[–]LinFTW 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago(0 children)Glad to see someone else posted this. angelkillerFeb 14, 2007, 7:37 AM Quote: raid 5 is best used for storage efficency Yea, That's why I changed. I could be wrong though. Sound like a lot?
Why Not To Use Raid 5
polarityMar 11, 2007, 5:06 AM Here's a few example numbers just for consideration.I've got a couple of RAID arrays here.One's a RAID5 in a webserver, using 6 Fujitsu MAH3091MC U160 SCSI However, that varies by drive manufacturer. One recently suggested that the level of data protection is dictated by the storage method used (e.g., block is high, file is medium, and object is low). SATA port 0 was consistent between the two, but the other ports' numbering was off.
A second disk failure on RAID1 or RAID5 will cause data loss, a second disk failure on RAID6 will remove redundancy and cause a second spare disk to be used to Other than HDD's being held to a higher manufacturing standard, a breakthrough in write speeds, an agreement by users to halt use during rebuilds, and a minimum of dual parity (raid A week ago, I saw two 10k 2.5" 146GB SAS disks fail nearly simultaneously. Dell No Longer Recommends Raid 5 I have a Highpoint 8 channel raid controller card and my raid5 screams...I have 2 raid5 drives and I can get 188MB/sec copying from one drive to another.
Not a member? Other industries such as consumer electronics with DVDs are using 56-of-64 encoding techniques that can tolerate 8 simultaneous bit failures and tolerate scratches on the disk for example. If you're already dealing with an emergency situation, do read on, but as you'll see, it may be too late for some of the advice provided. Ask !
So in order to write you must first read. Raid 5 Disk Limit Yeah true, though it does not *have* to be slower it could very well just be as fast and only take a bit extra processing overhead. http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/12/the-history-of-array-splittinghttp://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/one-big-raid-10-a-new-standard-in-server-storage http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/choosing-raid-for-hard-drives-in-2013 http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/choosing-a-raid-level-by-drive-count http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/hardware-and-software-raid http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/08/nearly-as-good-is-not-better http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/07/hot-spare-or-a-hot-mess http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/05/when-no-redundancy-is-more-reliable http://www.smbitjournal.com/2011/09/spotlight-on-smb-storage http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1670144 You have all those links in a text file don't ya, Copy and Paste fun, since it is If you really cared about performance, and were wanting to implement Swift, I could see putting the drives in raid-0 (although, from a higher level, it would really be something like
Dell Raid 5 Is No Longer Recommended
permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold[–]JudinousThat guy who keeps the cloud running 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago(1 child)Performance. Join Now We have a server that's running a SAS RAID 5 array (1.90 TB) and it has been throwing out event ID 55 errors saying "the file system structure on Why Not To Use Raid 5 That's not how it works. Raid 5 Is No Longer Recommended For Any Business Critical Information On Any Drive Type The only thing I can think of is that the zvol is too full.
RAID 5 to RAID 1/0 would involve recognising and discarding all the parity data, resizing the NTFS partition, and moving a heck of a lot of stuff around. http://robotadv.com/raid-5/raid-5-help-please.html If you're using expensive disks, then you're killing yourself on performance and wasting your money. Therefore, if you cannot now access and/or backup all the data stored on your RAID-5, do not attempt to rebuild. THAT process is where the issue lies and there is no possible proactive or reactive process to avoid it. Why Raid 6 Stops Working In 2019
Finally, I recalculated the AFR for 7 drives using the 3.1% AFR from the CMU paper, using the formula suggested by a couple of readers - 1-96.9 ^# of disks - Recognize that if as many as two hard drive elements have failed (that means any more than ONE), there is no possibility for regaining access to stored data without high-level data But I figured that the actual "data" on the HD isn't what I see in Windows. (I never see the parity data, etc.) So I don't want to risk my data his comment is here That counts about the same as years of experience working with enterprise level disk arrays, doesn't it?
In the Web-oriented world of today and tomorrow, the bigger picture is essential understating what IT service delivery profile is required. Is Raid 5 Safe You can also do other RAID levels with 3 or 4 drives, including a RAID 0/RAID 5 combination with 3 drives, or a RAID 0/RAID 10 or RAID 10/RAID 5 combination Would it be more useful to remove failure from thinking in favor of something else, for example, availability assurance based on client provided mechanisms?
Turns out the raid controller switched to ide mode for some reason.
Since the message points to bad sectors on the drive as a potential cause. 0 Mace OP John White Jul 9, 2013 at 12:46 UTC LIT12 wrote: Thanks February 4, 2015 Reply Alec Weder The biggest issue with RAID are the unrecoverable read errors. Failed rebuild attempts are lamentable and make successful data recovery more difficult and potentially impossible. Ure Rate permalinkembedsavegive gold[–]xman2000[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago(0 children)Agreed.
permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold[–]EuripidesOutDPSStorage Admin 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago(2 children)Actually it does have an impact. Click next, give the volume a name (I chose "RAID10"), select RAID 10 as the RAID level, select 64K as your stripe size, click next.34. permalinkembedsaveparent[–]IConradUNIX Engineer 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago(0 children)It's the same risk as five-disk RAID6 with single hot spare. weblink Data loss can result.