What's the best RAID array for fault tolerance [duplicate]What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?what is exactly an URE?Need help with recovering RAID arrayRAID array Considerations - Any advice?Do I need a second RAID controller for fault-tolerance?SQL Server: One 12-drive RAID-10 array or 2 arrays of 8-drives and 4-drivesPEBKAC failure on Raid 1 array (striped) installationWindows 2008 Best Raid ConfigurationDell PERC H700 and 8 disk slots : what are my options to increase disk fault tolerance?RAID consideration for 24 Disk Arrayrecover highly degraded raid array
Generate Brainfuck for the numbers 1–255
Do beef farmed pastures net remove carbon emissions?
Are there really no countries that protect Freedom of Speech as the United States do?
The cat exchanges places with a drawing of the cat
Can the IPA represent all languages' tones?
Is this n-speak?
Is there a SQL/English like language that lets you define formulations given some data?
A torrent of foreign terms
Collinear Galois conjugates
How would timezones work on a planet 100 times the size of our Earth
brancher: restricted to plugging in to an outlet?
When does Tiana, Ship's Caretaker check card type?
Translation of "I don't have anything to smile about"
How can God warn people of the upcoming rapture without disrupting society?
The cat ate your input again!
Does fossil fuels use since 1990 account for half of all the fossil fuels used in history?
Can a PC use the Levitate spell to avoid movement speed reduction from exhaustion?
If "more guns less crime", how do gun advocates explain that the EU has less crime than the US?
What gave Harry Potter the idea of writing in Tom Riddle's diary?
What does the phrase "pull off sick wheelies and flips" mean here?
How far did Gandalf and the Balrog drop from the bridge in Moria?
Why aren’t there water shutoff valves for each room?
Is it okay for a ticket seller to grab a tip in the USA?
How to assign many blockers at the same time?
What's the best RAID array for fault tolerance [duplicate]
What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?what is exactly an URE?Need help with recovering RAID arrayRAID array Considerations - Any advice?Do I need a second RAID controller for fault-tolerance?SQL Server: One 12-drive RAID-10 array or 2 arrays of 8-drives and 4-drivesPEBKAC failure on Raid 1 array (striped) installationWindows 2008 Best Raid ConfigurationDell PERC H700 and 8 disk slots : what are my options to increase disk fault tolerance?RAID consideration for 24 Disk Arrayrecover highly degraded raid array
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
This question already has an answer here:
What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?
2 answers
When setting up a server, I was told it needs to have really good fault tolerance. What RAID array would give me the best fault tolerance?
raid
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
marked as duplicate by HBruijn, Gerald Schneider, Ward♦ Apr 16 at 0:30
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?
2 answers
When setting up a server, I was told it needs to have really good fault tolerance. What RAID array would give me the best fault tolerance?
raid
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
marked as duplicate by HBruijn, Gerald Schneider, Ward♦ Apr 16 at 0:30
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
Please avoid asking subjective questions serverfault.com/help/dont-ask such as you have done. Please refer to the possible duplicate that HBrujin pointed out, though I noticed there was no mention of btrfs, or reword your question to follow this guide serverfault.com/help/how-to-ask . Though someone should mention something like a virtual SAN as they can survive the complete death of whole servers if setup right.
– BeowulfNode42
Apr 15 at 9:29
There's no "one weird trick to protecting your data". You need to define risk you're prepared to take vs. budget you can spend to mitigate the risk. For a start, if I was tasked to make a server fault tolerant, I'd reject that and ask about the requirements for the service and design fault tolerance from that point forwards, which might give me a completely different design around HA/clustering or containers or whatever, to meet the requirements vs. simply making the best you can of an individual server.
– Rob Moir
Apr 15 at 12:56
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?
2 answers
When setting up a server, I was told it needs to have really good fault tolerance. What RAID array would give me the best fault tolerance?
raid
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
This question already has an answer here:
What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?
2 answers
When setting up a server, I was told it needs to have really good fault tolerance. What RAID array would give me the best fault tolerance?
This question already has an answer here:
What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them?
2 answers
raid
raid
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
asked Apr 15 at 3:59
Daniel L. VanDenBoschDaniel L. VanDenBosch
1112 bronze badges
1112 bronze badges
marked as duplicate by HBruijn, Gerald Schneider, Ward♦ Apr 16 at 0:30
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by HBruijn, Gerald Schneider, Ward♦ Apr 16 at 0:30
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by HBruijn, Gerald Schneider, Ward♦ Apr 16 at 0:30
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
Please avoid asking subjective questions serverfault.com/help/dont-ask such as you have done. Please refer to the possible duplicate that HBrujin pointed out, though I noticed there was no mention of btrfs, or reword your question to follow this guide serverfault.com/help/how-to-ask . Though someone should mention something like a virtual SAN as they can survive the complete death of whole servers if setup right.
– BeowulfNode42
Apr 15 at 9:29
There's no "one weird trick to protecting your data". You need to define risk you're prepared to take vs. budget you can spend to mitigate the risk. For a start, if I was tasked to make a server fault tolerant, I'd reject that and ask about the requirements for the service and design fault tolerance from that point forwards, which might give me a completely different design around HA/clustering or containers or whatever, to meet the requirements vs. simply making the best you can of an individual server.
– Rob Moir
Apr 15 at 12:56
add a comment |
Please avoid asking subjective questions serverfault.com/help/dont-ask such as you have done. Please refer to the possible duplicate that HBrujin pointed out, though I noticed there was no mention of btrfs, or reword your question to follow this guide serverfault.com/help/how-to-ask . Though someone should mention something like a virtual SAN as they can survive the complete death of whole servers if setup right.
– BeowulfNode42
Apr 15 at 9:29
There's no "one weird trick to protecting your data". You need to define risk you're prepared to take vs. budget you can spend to mitigate the risk. For a start, if I was tasked to make a server fault tolerant, I'd reject that and ask about the requirements for the service and design fault tolerance from that point forwards, which might give me a completely different design around HA/clustering or containers or whatever, to meet the requirements vs. simply making the best you can of an individual server.
– Rob Moir
Apr 15 at 12:56
Please avoid asking subjective questions serverfault.com/help/dont-ask such as you have done. Please refer to the possible duplicate that HBrujin pointed out, though I noticed there was no mention of btrfs, or reword your question to follow this guide serverfault.com/help/how-to-ask . Though someone should mention something like a virtual SAN as they can survive the complete death of whole servers if setup right.
– BeowulfNode42
Apr 15 at 9:29
Please avoid asking subjective questions serverfault.com/help/dont-ask such as you have done. Please refer to the possible duplicate that HBrujin pointed out, though I noticed there was no mention of btrfs, or reword your question to follow this guide serverfault.com/help/how-to-ask . Though someone should mention something like a virtual SAN as they can survive the complete death of whole servers if setup right.
– BeowulfNode42
Apr 15 at 9:29
There's no "one weird trick to protecting your data". You need to define risk you're prepared to take vs. budget you can spend to mitigate the risk. For a start, if I was tasked to make a server fault tolerant, I'd reject that and ask about the requirements for the service and design fault tolerance from that point forwards, which might give me a completely different design around HA/clustering or containers or whatever, to meet the requirements vs. simply making the best you can of an individual server.
– Rob Moir
Apr 15 at 12:56
There's no "one weird trick to protecting your data". You need to define risk you're prepared to take vs. budget you can spend to mitigate the risk. For a start, if I was tasked to make a server fault tolerant, I'd reject that and ask about the requirements for the service and design fault tolerance from that point forwards, which might give me a completely different design around HA/clustering or containers or whatever, to meet the requirements vs. simply making the best you can of an individual server.
– Rob Moir
Apr 15 at 12:56
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In classical hardware RAID world, RAID1 and RAID6 are the more reliable RAID levels.
In the more advanced software RAID world (MDRAID and ZFS), you can use 3-way mirroring or even triple parity scheme (ZFS only).
From a reliability standpoint, correctly configured ZFS pools probably are the state of the art.
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
add a comment |
RAID-6 is, in my opinion, the best (at least, the best affordable), if fault tolerance is the most desired property, raid-5 being second best.
It would seem like RAID-1 (or 10 if more speed is desired and money isn't an issue) might be the go-to solution, but I wouldn't recommend that.
RAID levels 1 and 5 have in common that exactly one disk may fail, and no bad things will happen. Also, apart from complete disk failure, the array is resilient to single sectors becoming unreadable (as long as N-1 sectors with the corresponding number remain). With raid-1, in theory even as many as 50% of the array could fail and no bad things would happen, as long as it's strictly the "correct disks" that are failing. That is, never any two disks with the same index.
In principle, you could also do raid-1 with two, three, or ten mirror copies if you like, but monetary constraints usually forbid that. After all, throwing two dozen extra disks at the problem doesn't precisely make the approach "inexpensive" (though the word "inexpensive" in RAID refers to the single disks within the array, but nobody would want to use a cheap disk in a RAID anyway).
RAID-10 is somewhat inferior insofar as it is basically RAID-0 stacked on top of two (or maybe three) instances of RAID-1. Although each of them is fault-tolerant within its limits, if any single of these fail, the whole thing fails.
RAID-5 is cheap (only one extra disk needed) and has actually been sufficient for most people because hey, when do two disks die at the same time? Never happens! Well, sadly it can happen, and it does happen. Also, it can happen that a sector becomes unreadable. Yeah, that never happens, it's sooooooo unlikely, right.
Unluckily, when you need to re-sync after a failure, you must read every sector on all remaining disks. With modern disk capacities, that is a huge number. Huge number multiplied with unlikely-probably-never-happens will, unluckily result in a probability that is not at all impossible. It can happen that after one disk has failed, a sector goes bad. It can happen that a second disk (which has the same number of power-on hours) fails, especially when put under a 16-18-hour stress test during resync.
RAID-6 is the same as RAID-5 except it can withstand two disks failing simultaneously. It does not matter which disks fail, there is no worst case. Any two disks go down, and you're still good to go.
So when you have the first disk failing, it's not yet time for cold sweat. You are still good to go, and you still have redundancy in place. That is sooooooo much better compared to RAID-5, and it comes at the price of yet only one extra disk.
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In classical hardware RAID world, RAID1 and RAID6 are the more reliable RAID levels.
In the more advanced software RAID world (MDRAID and ZFS), you can use 3-way mirroring or even triple parity scheme (ZFS only).
From a reliability standpoint, correctly configured ZFS pools probably are the state of the art.
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
add a comment |
In classical hardware RAID world, RAID1 and RAID6 are the more reliable RAID levels.
In the more advanced software RAID world (MDRAID and ZFS), you can use 3-way mirroring or even triple parity scheme (ZFS only).
From a reliability standpoint, correctly configured ZFS pools probably are the state of the art.
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
add a comment |
In classical hardware RAID world, RAID1 and RAID6 are the more reliable RAID levels.
In the more advanced software RAID world (MDRAID and ZFS), you can use 3-way mirroring or even triple parity scheme (ZFS only).
From a reliability standpoint, correctly configured ZFS pools probably are the state of the art.
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
In classical hardware RAID world, RAID1 and RAID6 are the more reliable RAID levels.
In the more advanced software RAID world (MDRAID and ZFS), you can use 3-way mirroring or even triple parity scheme (ZFS only).
From a reliability standpoint, correctly configured ZFS pools probably are the state of the art.
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
edited Apr 15 at 7:45
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered Apr 15 at 7:26
shodanshokshodanshok
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
28.6k3 gold badges52 silver badges97 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
RAID-6 is, in my opinion, the best (at least, the best affordable), if fault tolerance is the most desired property, raid-5 being second best.
It would seem like RAID-1 (or 10 if more speed is desired and money isn't an issue) might be the go-to solution, but I wouldn't recommend that.
RAID levels 1 and 5 have in common that exactly one disk may fail, and no bad things will happen. Also, apart from complete disk failure, the array is resilient to single sectors becoming unreadable (as long as N-1 sectors with the corresponding number remain). With raid-1, in theory even as many as 50% of the array could fail and no bad things would happen, as long as it's strictly the "correct disks" that are failing. That is, never any two disks with the same index.
In principle, you could also do raid-1 with two, three, or ten mirror copies if you like, but monetary constraints usually forbid that. After all, throwing two dozen extra disks at the problem doesn't precisely make the approach "inexpensive" (though the word "inexpensive" in RAID refers to the single disks within the array, but nobody would want to use a cheap disk in a RAID anyway).
RAID-10 is somewhat inferior insofar as it is basically RAID-0 stacked on top of two (or maybe three) instances of RAID-1. Although each of them is fault-tolerant within its limits, if any single of these fail, the whole thing fails.
RAID-5 is cheap (only one extra disk needed) and has actually been sufficient for most people because hey, when do two disks die at the same time? Never happens! Well, sadly it can happen, and it does happen. Also, it can happen that a sector becomes unreadable. Yeah, that never happens, it's sooooooo unlikely, right.
Unluckily, when you need to re-sync after a failure, you must read every sector on all remaining disks. With modern disk capacities, that is a huge number. Huge number multiplied with unlikely-probably-never-happens will, unluckily result in a probability that is not at all impossible. It can happen that after one disk has failed, a sector goes bad. It can happen that a second disk (which has the same number of power-on hours) fails, especially when put under a 16-18-hour stress test during resync.
RAID-6 is the same as RAID-5 except it can withstand two disks failing simultaneously. It does not matter which disks fail, there is no worst case. Any two disks go down, and you're still good to go.
So when you have the first disk failing, it's not yet time for cold sweat. You are still good to go, and you still have redundancy in place. That is sooooooo much better compared to RAID-5, and it comes at the price of yet only one extra disk.
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
add a comment |
RAID-6 is, in my opinion, the best (at least, the best affordable), if fault tolerance is the most desired property, raid-5 being second best.
It would seem like RAID-1 (or 10 if more speed is desired and money isn't an issue) might be the go-to solution, but I wouldn't recommend that.
RAID levels 1 and 5 have in common that exactly one disk may fail, and no bad things will happen. Also, apart from complete disk failure, the array is resilient to single sectors becoming unreadable (as long as N-1 sectors with the corresponding number remain). With raid-1, in theory even as many as 50% of the array could fail and no bad things would happen, as long as it's strictly the "correct disks" that are failing. That is, never any two disks with the same index.
In principle, you could also do raid-1 with two, three, or ten mirror copies if you like, but monetary constraints usually forbid that. After all, throwing two dozen extra disks at the problem doesn't precisely make the approach "inexpensive" (though the word "inexpensive" in RAID refers to the single disks within the array, but nobody would want to use a cheap disk in a RAID anyway).
RAID-10 is somewhat inferior insofar as it is basically RAID-0 stacked on top of two (or maybe three) instances of RAID-1. Although each of them is fault-tolerant within its limits, if any single of these fail, the whole thing fails.
RAID-5 is cheap (only one extra disk needed) and has actually been sufficient for most people because hey, when do two disks die at the same time? Never happens! Well, sadly it can happen, and it does happen. Also, it can happen that a sector becomes unreadable. Yeah, that never happens, it's sooooooo unlikely, right.
Unluckily, when you need to re-sync after a failure, you must read every sector on all remaining disks. With modern disk capacities, that is a huge number. Huge number multiplied with unlikely-probably-never-happens will, unluckily result in a probability that is not at all impossible. It can happen that after one disk has failed, a sector goes bad. It can happen that a second disk (which has the same number of power-on hours) fails, especially when put under a 16-18-hour stress test during resync.
RAID-6 is the same as RAID-5 except it can withstand two disks failing simultaneously. It does not matter which disks fail, there is no worst case. Any two disks go down, and you're still good to go.
So when you have the first disk failing, it's not yet time for cold sweat. You are still good to go, and you still have redundancy in place. That is sooooooo much better compared to RAID-5, and it comes at the price of yet only one extra disk.
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
add a comment |
RAID-6 is, in my opinion, the best (at least, the best affordable), if fault tolerance is the most desired property, raid-5 being second best.
It would seem like RAID-1 (or 10 if more speed is desired and money isn't an issue) might be the go-to solution, but I wouldn't recommend that.
RAID levels 1 and 5 have in common that exactly one disk may fail, and no bad things will happen. Also, apart from complete disk failure, the array is resilient to single sectors becoming unreadable (as long as N-1 sectors with the corresponding number remain). With raid-1, in theory even as many as 50% of the array could fail and no bad things would happen, as long as it's strictly the "correct disks" that are failing. That is, never any two disks with the same index.
In principle, you could also do raid-1 with two, three, or ten mirror copies if you like, but monetary constraints usually forbid that. After all, throwing two dozen extra disks at the problem doesn't precisely make the approach "inexpensive" (though the word "inexpensive" in RAID refers to the single disks within the array, but nobody would want to use a cheap disk in a RAID anyway).
RAID-10 is somewhat inferior insofar as it is basically RAID-0 stacked on top of two (or maybe three) instances of RAID-1. Although each of them is fault-tolerant within its limits, if any single of these fail, the whole thing fails.
RAID-5 is cheap (only one extra disk needed) and has actually been sufficient for most people because hey, when do two disks die at the same time? Never happens! Well, sadly it can happen, and it does happen. Also, it can happen that a sector becomes unreadable. Yeah, that never happens, it's sooooooo unlikely, right.
Unluckily, when you need to re-sync after a failure, you must read every sector on all remaining disks. With modern disk capacities, that is a huge number. Huge number multiplied with unlikely-probably-never-happens will, unluckily result in a probability that is not at all impossible. It can happen that after one disk has failed, a sector goes bad. It can happen that a second disk (which has the same number of power-on hours) fails, especially when put under a 16-18-hour stress test during resync.
RAID-6 is the same as RAID-5 except it can withstand two disks failing simultaneously. It does not matter which disks fail, there is no worst case. Any two disks go down, and you're still good to go.
So when you have the first disk failing, it's not yet time for cold sweat. You are still good to go, and you still have redundancy in place. That is sooooooo much better compared to RAID-5, and it comes at the price of yet only one extra disk.
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
RAID-6 is, in my opinion, the best (at least, the best affordable), if fault tolerance is the most desired property, raid-5 being second best.
It would seem like RAID-1 (or 10 if more speed is desired and money isn't an issue) might be the go-to solution, but I wouldn't recommend that.
RAID levels 1 and 5 have in common that exactly one disk may fail, and no bad things will happen. Also, apart from complete disk failure, the array is resilient to single sectors becoming unreadable (as long as N-1 sectors with the corresponding number remain). With raid-1, in theory even as many as 50% of the array could fail and no bad things would happen, as long as it's strictly the "correct disks" that are failing. That is, never any two disks with the same index.
In principle, you could also do raid-1 with two, three, or ten mirror copies if you like, but monetary constraints usually forbid that. After all, throwing two dozen extra disks at the problem doesn't precisely make the approach "inexpensive" (though the word "inexpensive" in RAID refers to the single disks within the array, but nobody would want to use a cheap disk in a RAID anyway).
RAID-10 is somewhat inferior insofar as it is basically RAID-0 stacked on top of two (or maybe three) instances of RAID-1. Although each of them is fault-tolerant within its limits, if any single of these fail, the whole thing fails.
RAID-5 is cheap (only one extra disk needed) and has actually been sufficient for most people because hey, when do two disks die at the same time? Never happens! Well, sadly it can happen, and it does happen. Also, it can happen that a sector becomes unreadable. Yeah, that never happens, it's sooooooo unlikely, right.
Unluckily, when you need to re-sync after a failure, you must read every sector on all remaining disks. With modern disk capacities, that is a huge number. Huge number multiplied with unlikely-probably-never-happens will, unluckily result in a probability that is not at all impossible. It can happen that after one disk has failed, a sector goes bad. It can happen that a second disk (which has the same number of power-on hours) fails, especially when put under a 16-18-hour stress test during resync.
RAID-6 is the same as RAID-5 except it can withstand two disks failing simultaneously. It does not matter which disks fail, there is no worst case. Any two disks go down, and you're still good to go.
So when you have the first disk failing, it's not yet time for cold sweat. You are still good to go, and you still have redundancy in place. That is sooooooo much better compared to RAID-5, and it comes at the price of yet only one extra disk.
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
answered Apr 15 at 10:56
DamonDamon
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
2111 silver badge2 bronze badges
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
add a comment |
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
If performance is not important, RAID-6 can be considered, running RAID-6 on HDD for random write operations is a bad choise. RAID-10 is not so cost-efficient, but gives a best redundancy and performance.
– batistuta09
Apr 15 at 12:22
add a comment |
Please avoid asking subjective questions serverfault.com/help/dont-ask such as you have done. Please refer to the possible duplicate that HBrujin pointed out, though I noticed there was no mention of btrfs, or reword your question to follow this guide serverfault.com/help/how-to-ask . Though someone should mention something like a virtual SAN as they can survive the complete death of whole servers if setup right.
– BeowulfNode42
Apr 15 at 9:29
There's no "one weird trick to protecting your data". You need to define risk you're prepared to take vs. budget you can spend to mitigate the risk. For a start, if I was tasked to make a server fault tolerant, I'd reject that and ask about the requirements for the service and design fault tolerance from that point forwards, which might give me a completely different design around HA/clustering or containers or whatever, to meet the requirements vs. simply making the best you can of an individual server.
– Rob Moir
Apr 15 at 12:56