Ancestors

Written by Dust0741@lemmy.world on 2024-12-02 at 16:00

Should I bother with raid

https://lemmy.world/post/22687178

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dust0741@lemmy.world

Written by 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍 on 2024-12-03 at 09:46

RAID 1 is mirroring. If you accidentally delete a file, or it becomes corrupt (for reasons other than drive failure), RAID 1 will faithfully replicate that delete/corruption to both drives. RAID 1 only protects you from drive failure.

Implement backups before RAID. If you have an extra drive, use it for backups first.

There is only one case when it’s smart to use RAID on a machine with no backups, and that’s RAID 0 on a read-only server where the data is being replicated in from somewhere else. All other RAID levels only protect against drive failure, and not against the far more common causes of data loss: user- or application-caused data corruption.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sxan@midwest.social

Written by whodatdair@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 2024-12-03 at 16:28

I know it’s not totally relevant but I once convinced a company to run their log aggregators with 75 servers and 15 disks in raid0 each, we relied on the app layer to make sure there was at least 3 copies of the data and if a nodes dish array shat the bed the rest of the cluster would heal and replicate again.

75 servers each splitting the read/write operations 1/75th and then each server splitting that further between 15 disks. Each query had the potential to have ~1100 disks respond in concert, each with a tiny slice of the data you asked for. It was SO fast.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from whodatdair@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Toot

Written by Decipher0771@lemmy.ca on 2024-12-04 at 02:54

Big elk stack?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Decipher0771@lemmy.ca

Descendants