Re: Questions about RAID 6
> I don't know what your requirements / levels of paranoia are, but
> RAID 5 is
> probably better than RAID 6 until you are up to 6 or 7 drives; the
> chance of a
> double failure in a 5 (or less) drive array is minuscule.
>
.
I currently have 3 TB of data with another 1TB on its way fairly
soon, so 4 drives will become 5 quite soon. Also, I have read that a
common rating of drive failure is an unrecoverable read rate of 1
bit in 10^14 - that is 1 bit in every 10TB. While doing a rebuild
across 4 or 5 drives that would mean it is likely to hit an
unrecoverable read. With RAID 5 (no redundancy during rebuild due to
failed drive) that would be game over. Is this correct?
Tim.
Reply to: