Interesting article about raid 5

[slayme1974 1]

I was just doing some research about raid and I found this interesting article http://www.zdnet.com/article/raidfail-dont-use-raid-5-on-small-arrays/ its and old article but it's still interesting.

[Jeruselem 656]

Raid 10 or 1+0 is the way to go with disks going so cheap these days.

[Master_Scythe 531]

SnapRAID is my go to solution for media storage :)

[joemeow 2]

I would love to read about raid levels i guess it has 6+ levels

[Kothos 53]

 

Why does a rebuild stop if it encounters a URE?  Couldn't it just skip that bit/sector and continue rebuilding the rest of the data?  The data is still there, and a tape backup or any other backup will also have missing data at the point of that URE, yet it's not fatal.

[Master_Scythe 531]

On 8/30/2018 at 11:11 AM, Kothos said:

Why does a rebuild stop if it encounters a URE?  Couldn't it just skip that bit/sector and continue rebuilding the rest of the data?  The data is still there, and a tape backup or any other backup will also have missing data at the point of that URE, yet it's not fatal.

Depends what was hit.

RAID uses a much larger... lets call it 'window' of data to determine how to rebuild missing files.
Unlike say, RaidZ (ZFS) which checksums each file\block individually.

For this reason, ZFS can skip a file, and restore the rest of them.
However, while there may be a good chance nothing is lost, on RAID5, if that "bad bit of data" causes a decent size calculation error, you can't be sure what you've lost.

 

Honestly, there's no reason not to use ZFS these days if it's a dedicated storage machine.

Otherwise, if you're using RAID1 features, you can look into BTRFS