joshuaboniface
/
raidisnotabackup
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Remove mention of "RAID5 considered harmful"

This commit is contained in:
Joshua Boniface 2022-10-13 09:25:58 -04:00
parent 6e2eb95763
commit a0fb0f422e
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/2.md
View File

@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ RAID protects you against one and only one thing: a disk failure.
It does _not_ protect you against any of the following things:
* Multiple disk failures beyond the RAID level chosen (e.g. both disks in a mirror, or 3 disks in a RAID-6), including possible [UREs](https://holtstrom.com/michael/blog/post/588/RAID-5-URE-Failures.html) - on that later subject, RAID-5 should be considered harmful these days for any disks larger than 1TB.
* Multiple disk failures beyond the RAID level chosen (e.g. both disks in a mirror, or 3 disks in a RAID-6), including possible [UREs](https://holtstrom.com/michael/blog/post/588/RAID-5-URE-Failures.html).
* Failure of the RAID controller itself (especially when using hardware RAID), the computer running the RAID, or the environment containing the servers (a flood, fire, theft, etc.).
* Data corruption on-disk from filesystem bugs, cosmic rays, or minor hardware or firmware failures, which can and do happen all the time - you usually just don't notice and software works around it.
* Malicious or accidental deletion or modification of files by yourself or another party, including viruses, bad application writes, or administrative mistakes (e.g. `rm`-ing the wrong file or `mkfs` on an existing filesystem), which any seasoned sysadmin has done at least once (and hopefully not to production data)!