From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Youngman Subject: Re: RAID5 Performance Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:08:23 +0100 Message-ID: <354d54b6-31ce-a047-be0c-1e820d5b030e@youngman.org.uk> References: <7b7d730f-2951-ba5f-7f6b-33624b59a02d@websitemanagers.com.au> <7af0cc98-e395-9446-05eb-a6c0ca20f187@websitemanagers.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: doug@easyco.com, Adam Goryachev Cc: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 28/07/16 01:11, Doug Dumitru wrote: > I don't know about you, but I do have SSDs, even from major vendors, > that fail. They usually "just fall off the bus" with no warning. So > I dislike skipping redundancy. RAID turned an emergency into a > mundane task. It is really a cost issue. If you can afford RAID-10 > and extra space, that will work best. I don't think RAID-50 with this > few drives makes much sense. I came across an article about testing SSDs to destruction. First the good news - they tended to last much longer than expected. And the bad news? They typically contain a self-destruct switch. Once they start failing, a power-cycle will (intentionally) kill them dead. ESPECIALLY if they're from a major vendor. So if you don't notice they're dying, or (as in the case of the tester) you have power problems that tip them over the edge, your data WILL be gone without warning. Cheers, Wol