[ML-General] hardware RAID

[WebDawg]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Kirk D Mccann <kirk.mccann at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So I've noticed two things that no one has mentioned yet.  3 drives
> running in raid 0 and rebuild times of large drives.
>
> Raid 0:
> You realize that if any one of the drives that are running in raid 0 fail
> then you lose all your data right?  The only time you want to use raid 0 is
> when you dont care about the data and are looking for speed.  I use raid 0
> for our build server build drive because we always have source code that
> can be used to rebuild the builds.
>
> Large Drives:
> So if you have more two drives mirroring isnt really what you want because
> true mirroring only works with two sets.  (That could be two drives or two
> sets of raided disks).
> Since you have more than two drives you are going to want raid 5,6, or 7.
> The raid that you choose should be based on the size of your drives and the
> class of the drives.
>
> If the drives you have are more than 1TB in size and they are consumer
> grade drives then you shouldn't be using raid 5.
> This is a problem because the likelihood of a read failure while
> rebuilding a disk is higher the larger the drives are.  So then you have to
> be able to handle a read failure which requires a higher raid.  Check out
> the calculator:
> http://www.servethehome.com/raid-calculator/raid-reliability-calculator-simple-mttdl-model/
>
> Also if you are using raid dont use Western Digital Green drives unless
> you plan to reflash the firmware to make them function like red drives.
>

Do you know if the WD greens can still be reflashed?  I have read "The WD
Green drives did allow you to disable TLER up to a point, then WD caught on
that people were using these drives for RAID instead of their more
expensive enterprise level drives and put and end to it. Now the popular
choice seems to be Hitachis, as they work in RAID arrays without any TLER
adjustments required."


Do you know if this is true or is it just some forum BS?



>
> My recommendation:
> All that being said I am a big fan of Freenas, because it uses ZFS.  Btrfs
> is great but its not quite where ZFS is yet(or at least that was the case
> when I last looked at it).  If you go the ZFS route you REALLY REALLY need
> to read up on how ZFS, uDevs, and vDevs work.  Because what many people
> dont realize is you cant just add a single disk to the array when you do it
> makes the entire array fail if that single added disk fails.  When you add
> drives you have to add drives in sets.
>
> I talked to one of the btrfs devs onces.  That dev was extremely against
me talking about btrfs like it was ZFS.  That being said I still do not
know alot about it.  Being the dev they were I am sure we are talking about
a lot of the details that really do make a difference in the end.  I know I
need to do more research but at the time the dev was more into making btrfs
stable for enterprise then features.



> Personally I'm paranoid about my data, I use ZFS raid z3 on two vDevs,
> each vDev has 5 2+TB drives.
>
This is one of the reasons I use ZFS w/ ECC memory.  It can detect bit
flips!


>
> Oh and with ZFS you can use different size drives but you waist a good
> amount of space when you do that.
> And lastly be sure to schedule scrubs of your drives and do it in a way
> that the scrub will not occur while a long smart test is running.  That can
> cause problems.
>
> Can I ask what type of problems?


> -Kirk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.makerslocal.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20150612/7acadd4e/attachment.html>