Given how big disks have become, many admins are moving away from RAID 5. Now they are seeing the value of RAID 6. For example, RAID 6 (still reliable for most enterprise/NAS setups). Erasure Coding (Ceph, TrueNAS Scale) → more scalable fault tolerance. RAID 5 is effectively obsolete for any array using today’s large disks.

@PhlipElder said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:

Modern RAID controllers have the horsepower and cache RAM that is flash backed to overcome any real parity performance costs.

Operationally it would be just fine. It's only recovery time that would be of concern.

@scottalanmiller said in RAID - the king of the storage landscape or legacy?:

@pchiodo said in RAID - the king of the storage landscape or legacy?:

Well, I think you guys really RAIN'd on this guys parade. Good work.

You were hoping for a RAIDing party?

~Grabs Knife of Slicing. (Knife made from computer case, +2 bleeding damage)
~Grabs Winchester Shield (+1 defense, -255 data retention).
~Grabs Umbrella (+50 resistance to water, -50 resistance to lightning).
~Grabs Book of SPELLS. (Stupidly Powerful Extra Long Ludicrous Sayings, +25 Magic Damage)

There, I'm ready.

Can we get some tags on this post?

URE is one I would love to see added.
Thanks

@dafyre said in Can You Install FreeNAS to a Single RAID 6 RAIDZ2 Array:

Who are you and what have you done with @scottalanmiller ... Actually using FreeNAS for something?

I was just about to say the same thing. Or maybe his account was hacked.

Remember that this is backup. So if the backup system fails you have options like...

Taking a new backup from the live systems. Offlining the limping array and taking a full backup of it before attempting a restore Doing a backup/restore rather than an array recovery

All of these things make RAID 6's risks minimal. This isn't the only copy of anything, it's a backup. And it is not subject to availability risks (at least not in the way that live data is) so things that cause availability issues are not significant.

@coliver said in Math Check: 45x 4TB drives in a BackBlaze system.......:

@travisdh1 said in Math Check: 45x 4TB drives in a BackBlaze system.......:

@DustinB3403 said in Math Check: 45x 4TB drives in a BackBlaze system.......:

Someone needs to rip that earring out of his head.

Maybe then he'll get a clue.

He wouldn't get as many views then, and that's really the point. People don't like watching someone succeed nearly so much as the utterly stupid. (See his $100,000 pc build for another one.)

Views also get him sponsorship which is where the $100,000 PC came from.

Exactly. The sponsors don't care that the content is banal. They care about the numbers of viewers and to a lesser degree their demographics.