Is it worth it to buy 2x the storage to use raid? đ€
Discussion
As a rule of thumb, yes. In practice, only mission critical is fine if scope creep can be kept at bay.
Read speeds double, so itâs viable to get high quality HDDs instead of spending the premium in SSDs
Thatâs what I did and IMO itâs worth it. I got one main RAID 10 and will be setting up another while migrating. IRONWOLF now has extended use NAS drives at 16TB for like $300 cuck bucks
Sometimes I read things and wish I understood what the hell is going on? Are you guys talking about a mining rig or something ?
General storage for computing.
Oops! Wrong link
Dead on man , thanks for that , I'll have a little read up about it . Always learning on Nostr man , it's brilliant .
Haha RAID is a way to take multiple hard drives and use them as a single drive. There are different setups with different benefits.
Iâm using RAID 10, so when I put two 8TB drives into the setup, I only get 8TB of storage - the same is mirrored in each. However, when I am downloading/reading from the drives, it will pull half from one drive, and half from the other as needed, so itâs twice as fast. Then also if a hard drives ever dies on me, Iâve lost no data because itâs mirrored on both. I just take out the dead drive, put in a new one, and itâs like nothing happened.
There are other setups that go the opposite way. RAID 5 splits the difference so itâs across 3 drives and you keep 2/3rds of the data and get better read and write speeds. But you can only lose 1 drive and recovery is a little slower and kore frustrating.
Then thereâs RAID 0 which just uses two drives at the same time and puts half the data on each drive. Doubles read and write speed. But it means if you lose *either* drive, you lose all the data.
UTXO is talking about using a mirrored option. You need twice the drives j write speed isnât any better, but you get reliability & good read speeds in exchange.
Wow , thank you for the comprehensive explanation, I wasn't aware that such a thing existed ! That is pretty cool. So you can speed up your read / write times and have a fail safe . Cool .
And I also had to replace one old 8TB drive that I had leaned on for a bit with a new IRONWOLF drive and it was super easy. So thereâs that.
This is the way.
I just had 3 of my 4 spinning rust array die in a move. I no longer recommend hdd for anything but archival.
Rip
Ya, only 3 years old WD reds too. I was livid
Damn, the one I had to replace was a WD also. But it was about as âconsumer gradeâ as it gets. Not a Red.
Did you use movers? Did the box get launched out of a truck or something? đđŹ
Only a 20 mile uhaul trip! My own fault since I know the proper way wouldâve been to remove & store properly in shockproof casing, but still, I thought itâd be fine.
Damn suspension đ
Jesus đ
Backups! Backups! Backups!
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/data_backup_options.pdf
Ouch. That hurts. Weâve been moving to ZFS raid + encrypted s3 backup. I get chills thinking about something like that happening.
It was raidz1, so I couldnât be fancy with multiple disk tolerance đ
Im considering moving the new array to raidz3, but I want to add mixed models first.
I took down my backblaze backup down years ago & am living life on the edge with a single copy on a WD Pro I had bought just a few weeks before. Bricks were shat during discovery đ
Depends how important the data on the drives are imo
I selfhost a Jellyfin server and have some drives with a bunch of... uhm.. Linux ISOs and I decided to not go with a RAID setup because I couldn't afford more disks. I do not look forward to the day one of the drives fails..
Raid5, 3 drives, redundancy AND parallel read/write.
What's the total capacity?
Yes. I use raid for >10 years now (mirroring). Sooner or later every hard disk will fail (occurred twice for me).