Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I chose raidz1. With only a handful of disks, the odds of two drives failing simultaneously is fairly low.

Only if you buy different hard drives or at least from different production batches. I had a lot of trouble on the same premise and I won't make that mistake again.

Edit: He mentioned it though ( a bit later in the article)

> The problem is that disks aren’t statistically independent. If one disk fails, its neighbor has a substantially higher risk of dying. This is especially true if the disks are the same model, from the same manufacturing batch, and processed the same workloads. Given this, I did what I could to reduce the risk of concurrent disk failures.

> I chose two different models of disk from two different manufacturers. To reduce the chances of getting disks from the same manufacturing batch, I bought them from different vendors. I can’t say how much this matters, but it didn’t increase costs significantly, so why not?




> I had a lot of trouble on the same premise and I won't make that mistake again.

Please elaborate, I'd love to hear your story!

I hear a lot of advice around raid/z-levels and it often seems backed up by shaky math that doesn't seem to be backed up by reality (like the blog posts that claim that a rebuild of an array of 8 TB drives will absolutely have hard read errors, no exceptions, and yet monthly ZFS scrubs pass with flying colors?)


I decided on Raid 5 and 2 drives broke within the week.

Not much to tell otherwise though. I was really annoyed with it at the time.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: