Comment by LorenPechtel
3 days ago
RAID. Preferably RAID 6. Much, much better to build a system to survive failure than to prevent failure.
3 days ago
RAID. Preferably RAID 6. Much, much better to build a system to survive failure than to prevent failure.
Don't RAID these days. Software won rather drastically, likely because CPUs are finally powerful enough to run all those calculations without much of a hassle.
Software solutions like Windows Storage Spaces, ZFS, XFS, unRAID, etc. etc are "just better" than traditional RAID.
Yes, focus on 2x parity drive solutions, such as ZFS's "raidz2", or other such "equivalent to RAID6" systems. But just focus on software solutions that more easily allow you to move hard drives around without tying them to motherboard-slots or other such hardware issues.
> Don't RAID these days. Software won rather drastically
RAID does not mean or imply hardware RAID controllers, which you seem to incorrectly assume.
Software RAID is still 100% RAID.
And 'softRAID', like what is on for free on Intel motherboards or AMD Motherboards suck and should be avoided.
------
The best advice I can give is to use a real solution like ZFS, Storage Spaces and the like.
It's not sufficient to say 'Use RAID' because within the Venn Diagram of things falling under RAID is a whole bunch of shit solutions and awful experiences.
1 reply →
FYI XFS is not redundant, also RAID usually refers to software RAID these days.
I like btrfs for this purpose since it's extremely easy to setup over cli, but any of the other options mentioned will work.
btrfs RAID is quite infamous for eating your data. Has it been fixed recently?
8 replies →
Software or hardware, it's still the same basic concept.
Redundancy rather than individual reliability.