If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
Hi all,
I'm building a RAID solution for personal archiving (general large things like raw photos, full disk backups, DVD rips, that sort of thing). I picked up a 7-disk NAS tower that I'm filling with 2 TB desktop-class SATA disks. Much of this is irreplacable data - RAID failure would be very bad. The question I have is: is RAID 5 sufficient, or is RAID 6 needed? Because this is for personal archival, the system would only be turned on occasionally (much longer per-disk mean time to failure), and in the event of a disk failure, could be turned off until the disk is replaced (it would never run in degraded mode). On the other hand, rebuilding a 2 TB disk could take a while, and this interval could by itself provide ample opportunity for a second disk failure (particularly if my disks happened to come from a single batch). Should I play it safe and go for RAID 6 here? Thanks for your advice! -- Derrick Coetzee |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
Derrick Coetzee wrote:
Hi all, I'm building a RAID solution for personal archiving (general large things like raw photos, full disk backups, DVD rips, that sort of thing). I picked up a 7-disk NAS tower that I'm filling with 2 TB desktop-class SATA disks. Much of this is irreplacable data - RAID failure would be very bad. The question I have is: is RAID 5 sufficient, or is RAID 6 needed? Because this is for personal archival, the system would only be turned on occasionally (much longer per-disk mean time to failure), and in the event of a disk failure, could be turned off until the disk is replaced (it would never run in degraded mode). On the other hand, rebuilding a 2 TB disk could take a while, and this interval could by itself provide ample opportunity for a second disk failure (particularly if my disks happened to come from a single batch). Should I play it safe and go for RAID 6 here? A rebuild runs in degraded mode, and is the hardest task for the disks since everything on all disks needs to be read again. It is therefore a likely time for other disks to fail. This is particularly true if all the disks are from the same batch (and they are obviously subject to roughly the same environment). What about running raid 10 instead? It's not as space efficient, but it's arguably safer than raid 6 (raid 6 can survive two disk fails - /if/ it can survive the rebuild afterwards. raid 10 can survive one disk fail, followed by more failures as long as you don't hit both drives in a pair. And rebuild is much faster and easier). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
"Derrick Coetzee " wrote:
Hi all, I'm building a RAID solution for personal archiving (general large things like raw photos, full disk backups, DVD rips, that sort of thing). I picked up a 7-disk NAS tower that I'm filling with 2 TB desktop-class SATA disks. Much of this is irreplacable data - RAID failure would be very bad. It would be bad to lose your raid, but you still need to back it up. Trust me, a "NAS tower + desktop class sata disks" will fail at some point, and you will lose all your stuff. The question I have is: is RAID 5 sufficient, or is RAID 6 needed? 5 would be sketchy for such large drives. 6 is better. Because this is for personal archival, the system would only be turned on occasionally (much longer per-disk mean time to failure), and in the event of a disk failure, could be turned off until the disk is replaced (it would never run in degraded mode). On the other hand, you don't know that it won't run in degraded mode unless you have some magic way to stop the array upon any failure, which really don't do you any good anyways. rebuilding a 2 TB disk could take a while, and this interval could by itself provide ample opportunity for a second disk failure (particularly if my disks happened to come from a single batch). Should I play it safe and go for RAID 6 here? yes, raid6 may be better. I'd suggest using a decent RAID controller if you can too. Any controller built into a motherboard is garbage by the way. Again, you still need backups no matter what you do. you said it yourself- the data is irreplacable. A RAID array can help reduce the chance of HARDWARE data loss, but that's just one of many ways you can lose data in the first place. It helps, but is never a complete answer by itself. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
Derrick Coetzee wrote:
Hi all, I'm building a RAID solution for personal archiving (general large things like raw photos, full disk backups, DVD rips, that sort of thing). I picked up a 7-disk NAS tower that I'm filling with 2 TB desktop-class SATA disks. Much of this is irreplacable data - RAID failure would be very bad. The question I have is: is RAID 5 sufficient, or is RAID 6 needed? Because this is for personal archival, the system would only be turned on occasionally (much longer per-disk mean time to failure), and in the event of a disk failure, could be turned off until the disk is replaced (it would never run in degraded mode). On the other hand, rebuilding a 2 TB disk could take a while, and this interval could by itself provide ample opportunity for a second disk failure (particularly if my disks happened to come from a single batch). Should I play it safe and go for RAID 6 here? Data sitting in one location can never be considered really safe - even if it's replicated in that one location. So if you're at all serious about protecting against its loss, your first priority would be to maintain copies in at least two locations. Given that, given that you'll apparently never need to update any archived data in the archive, and given that you don't appear to expect to need to access the data often, why use RAID at all rather than just dump the data to replicated (and then geographically separated) archive-quality DVD or similar optical media, or even tape? The fact that a single RAID array might be more convenient to use is irrelevant if your real priority is protection against data loss. If you choose to go the RAID route anyway you'll definitely need a RAID controller (whether hardware or software) that can ride through detection of a bad block when reconstructing data after a disk failure. RAID-6 should normally be able to do this, but since the likelihood of a second whole-disk failure during reconstruction is several orders of magnitude lower than that of hitting a bad block on one of the surviving disks a reasonably-designed RAID-5 controller should be able to ride through bad blocks as well, though of course the resulting block will be corrupt after reconstruction (especially with large files the likelihood that this will affect more than one file is vanishingly small, so think of it as single-file corruption rather than array failure). Or you could choose to maintain an unreplicated off-site archive (on disk, optical media, or tape) plus all the same data (or at least all that you really care about) on a running system at your primary location. This would keep all the data readily accessible while maintaining a remote copy just in case - plus have the advantage that neither site used a RAID implementation that might have difficulty dealing with bad blocks during reconstruction. Just food for thought, - bill |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
I'd like to second everything Bill Todd said. And add a few things.
RAID has two functions: It enhances the reliability of your data (the data is likely to be restorable even after a failure of part of the system), and it enhances the availability of your data (the data can be read at all times, even right after a fault, as long as the fault is of the kind you're protected against). We'll have to look at likely fault scenarios, and see what it would take to provide reliability and availability at a level you need. You seem to say that reliability is absolutely required, but availability is secondary. The highest probability of data loss in such a system is not hardware failure, but brain failure. You cd into the archival file system, and say "rm *". Or you're formatting some other filesystem, and pick the wrong /dev/ entry, formatting your multi-terabyte array instead of the USB stick. Big reliability problem. To guard against that, you need to backup from your archive to some other file system. That other file system should be either a dedicated backup solution (which can't be written to), or disconnected most of the time (so it doesn't fall prey to similar mistakes). The next biggest problem is not actual drive failure, but failure of your RAID firmware or software. This is particularly true if your RAID array is consumer-grade (although enterprise-grade RAID arrays have seen their share of data loss events too). RAID data losses are particularly common ruding rebuild. For that reason, I would keep rebuild simple (RAID 10), instead of RAID 6. Particularly true for low-end RAID solutions that don't have NVRAM: for complicated reasons, it's difficult to do parity-based RAID (RAID 5, 6 etc.) without NVRAM, which more often than not causes low-end parity-based RAID systems to be buggy. So you mjight suddenly find your whole array to be scrambled. Again, backup is your friend. Remember, it's not a backup until you have successfully restored it. Part of such a storage solution must be exercising your emergency procedures. Pull a drive from the RAID array, and watch it go through rebuild, then reinsert the drive. Use "write long" to cause a parity error, and make sure the array scrubs it out pretty fast (leaving lingering errors unscrubbed is a recipe for disaster). Pretend that your local array has died, and try to restore onto a spare array, and make your restore procedures actually work. Speaking of hardware failures: As has been mentioned already, a combination of a failure of a while drive with a failure of a single block is dangerously probably on 2TB-class disks. Recommending single-fault-tolerant RAID 5 arrays this size would be irresponsible. But much more likely than any of these faults are systemic faults which take the whole array out, with all the nice redundancy. Ten years ago, a 10TB array would have been the size of a few refrigerators, would have been in a computer room with a raised floor, with a fire suppression system, and its own Liebert power conditioner. Management was done by a team of highly skilled storage admins, who have gone to training classes at places like EMC, IBM, or StorageTek. The array had no single point of failure (redundant power and cooling, multiple power connections to multiple grids, batteries to power through short outages). Today it fits on a desktop, people put their bottles of beer on top of it, it's exposed to all manner of environmental dangers (beginning with dust clogging the fans, up to local fires), and it's likely to get fried by "Pakistani Gas and Electric" (our local power company here in Silicon Valley). It has probably just one power supply and one cooling fan - and those two components are actually much less reliable than the disks themselves. So more likely than a disk or block error is a complete failure of the whole array, likely caused by an environmental problem (like local fire in your office, or sprinklers going off by mistake). Again, backup is your friend, and the backup better be in a different building, far away (as was clearly demonstrated a few years ago, putting your backup data center in the other tower of the World Trace Center is insufficient). On the other hand, some of these systemic failures (like fan or power supply failure) only leave your array temporarily disabled (availability), and don't necessarily induce data loss (reliability). Still, restoring from remote backup might be faster than repairing your array. Once you are protected against brain cramp, firmware faults, local disaster, the protection against disk failure and disk data loss becomes secondary. Let's get back to the distinction between reliability and availability. Backup takes care of reliability. Do you actually need continuous availability? If your power supply in the RAID array fails, would it bother you if you have to wait 3 days until the replacement has been shipped? Even assuming that 3 years from now you can still get spare parts for your disk enclosure (only likely if you bought the enclosure from a name-brand vendor, Dell, Sun, IBM, HP, EMC, NetApp ...). If your office catches fire, would it bother you if it took 3 days to purchase a replacement disk array and restore it from the remote backup? If you can handle a few days of downtime, then I would suggest not wasting your money on RAID, and instead invest it in better remote backup, and more bandwidth. And if you want to invest in RAID, pick RAID 10 - inefficient, but reliable and simple. -- Ralph Becker-Szendy _firstname_@lr_dot_los-gatos_dot_ca_dot_us 735 Sunset Ridge Road; Los Gatos, CA 95033 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
On Sep 19, 12:53*am, (Ralph Becker-Szendy) wrote:
I'd like to second everything Bill Todd said. *And add a few things. RAID has two functions: It enhances the reliability of your data (the data is likely to be restorable even after a failure of part of the system), and it enhances the availability of your data (the data can be read at all times, even right after a fault, as long as the fault is of the kind you're protected against). *We'll have to look at likely fault scenarios, and see what it would take to provide reliability and availability at a level you need. *You seem to say that reliability is absolutely required, but availability is secondary. The highest probability of data loss in such a system is not hardware failure, but brain failure. *You cd into the archival file system, and say "rm *". *Or you're formatting some other filesystem, and pick the wrong /dev/ entry, formatting your multi-terabyte array instead of the USB stick. *Big reliability problem. *To guard against that, you need to backup from your archive to some other file system. *That other file system should be either a dedicated backup solution (which can't be written to), or disconnected most of the time (so it doesn't fall prey to similar mistakes). The next biggest problem is not actual drive failure, but failure of your RAID firmware or software. *This is particularly true if your RAID array is consumer-grade (although enterprise-grade RAID arrays have seen their share of data loss events too). *RAID data losses are particularly common ruding rebuild. *For that reason, I would keep rebuild simple (RAID 10), instead of RAID 6. *Particularly true for low-end RAID solutions that don't have NVRAM: for complicated reasons, it's difficult to do parity-based RAID (RAID 5, 6 etc.) without NVRAM, which more often than not causes low-end parity-based RAID systems to be buggy. *So you mjight suddenly find your whole array to be scrambled. *Again, backup is your friend. Remember, it's not a backup until you have successfully restored it. Part of such a storage solution must be exercising your emergency procedures. *Pull a drive from the RAID array, and watch it go through rebuild, then reinsert the drive. *Use "write long" to cause a parity error, and make sure the array scrubs it out pretty fast (leaving lingering errors unscrubbed is a recipe for disaster). *Pretend that your local array has died, and try to restore onto a spare array, and make your restore procedures actually work. Speaking of hardware failures: As has been mentioned already, a combination of a failure of a while drive with a failure of a single block is dangerously probably on 2TB-class disks. *Recommending single-fault-tolerant RAID 5 arrays this size would be irresponsible. But much more likely than any of these faults are systemic faults which take the whole array out, with all the nice redundancy. *Ten years ago, a 10TB array would have been the size of a few refrigerators, would have been in a computer room with a raised floor, with a fire suppression system, and its own Liebert power conditioner. Management was done by a team of highly skilled storage admins, who have gone to training classes at places like EMC, IBM, or StorageTek. The array had no single point of failure (redundant power and cooling, multiple power connections to multiple grids, batteries to power through short outages). *Today it fits on a desktop, people put their bottles of beer on top of it, it's exposed to all manner of environmental dangers (beginning with dust clogging the fans, up to local fires), and it's likely to get fried by "Pakistani Gas and Electric" (our local power company here in Silicon Valley). *It has probably just one power supply and one cooling fan - and those two components are actually much less reliable than the disks themselves. So more likely than a disk or block error is a complete failure of the whole array, likely caused by an environmental problem (like local fire in your office, or sprinklers going off by mistake). *Again, backup is your friend, and the backup better be in a different building, far away (as was clearly demonstrated a few years ago, putting your backup data center in the other tower of the World Trace Center is insufficient). *On the other hand, some of these systemic failures (like fan or power supply failure) only leave your array temporarily disabled (availability), and don't necessarily induce data loss (reliability). *Still, restoring from remote backup might be faster than repairing your array. Once you are protected against brain cramp, firmware faults, local disaster, the protection against disk failure and disk data loss becomes secondary. *Let's get back to the distinction between reliability and availability. *Backup takes care of reliability. *Do you actually need continuous availability? *If your power supply in the RAID array fails, would it bother you if you have to wait 3 days until the replacement has been shipped? *Even assuming that 3 years from now you can still get spare parts for your disk enclosure (only likely if you bought the enclosure from a name-brand vendor, Dell, Sun, IBM, HP, EMC, NetApp ...). *If your office catches fire, would it bother you if it took 3 days to purchase a replacement disk array and restore it from the remote backup? *If you can handle a few days of downtime, then I would suggest not wasting your money on RAID, and instead invest it in better remote backup, and more bandwidth. *And if you want to invest in RAID, pick RAID 10 - inefficient, but reliable and simple. -- Ralph Becker-Szendy * *_firstname_@lr_dot_los-gatos_dot_ca_dot_us 735 Sunset Ridge Road; Los Gatos, CA 95033 By the time go through with all of these recommendations you will have effectively built yourself a Data Center. And at what cost? Maybe you should consider augmenting a simpler cheaper solution with some of these online services that offer a cloud model, where you backup your data to their servers and they are contractually obligated to insure your data safety. This gets you the ability to restore in case you rm the hell out of it (brain cramp), restore in case of theft or damage (beer spill), and pretty much insures that if you upgrade your hardware, or are unable to get a replacement drive or RAID card, that you have an offsite/offline solution to get the data back. By the time you are finished with all the fault tolerances these folks have kindly suggested, you may have very well paid for years of an offsite backup already... Just a thought. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
mrvelous1 wrote:
.... By the time go through with all of these recommendations you will have effectively built yourself a Data Center. Not really - perhaps you got confused by the length of the explanations to the point that you lost track of their substance. And at what cost? Maybe you should consider augmenting a simpler cheaper solution with some of these online services that offer a cloud model, where you backup your data to their servers and they are contractually obligated to insure your data safety. This gets you the ability to restore in case you rm the hell out of it (brain cramp), restore in case of theft or damage (beer spill), and pretty much insures that if you upgrade your hardware, or are unable to get a replacement drive or RAID card, that you have an offsite/offline solution to get the data back. The cloud model is attractive in some regards (e.g., ease of use and, when your backup needs are limited, cost), less so in others. You'll probably want to back up to at least two different cloud vendors to guard against the possibility that one will suddenly cease to exist (especially when dealing with a low-cost - or even free, for small volumes - cloud vendor, since this end of the market hasn't even begun to shake itself out yet). And good luck finding a vendor (especially a low-cost one) who will come anywhere near guaranteeing your data's safety (another good reason to use two of them) - which is not to say that some don't take very reasonable precautions to protect your data, just that they're not stupid when it comes to 'contractual obligations'. By the time you are finished with all the fault tolerances these folks have kindly suggested, you may have very well paid for years of an offsite backup already... Unlikely, since the least expensive suggestion that satisfies all the criteria mentioned above is simply to archive to at least one off-site, off-line set of media (which you periodically verify are still good) while retaining an on-site copy as well if you don't choose to replicate the archived data to a second off-site location. This also gets around the need to use RAID in any form in your archive, thus avoiding Ralph's concerns about low-end RAID implementation quality. - bill |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
I'm building a RAID solution for personal archiving (general large
things like raw photos, full disk backups, DVD rips, that sort of thing). I picked up a 7-disk NAS tower that I'm filling with 2 TB desktop-class SATA disks. Much of this is irreplacable data - RAID failure would be very bad. Maybe tape drive is better? -- Maxim S. Shatskih Windows DDK MVP http://www.storagecraft.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RAID level for personal archival?
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:41:31 -0700 (PDT), "Derrick Coetzee
" wrote: Hi all, I'm building a RAID solution for personal archiving (general large things like raw photos, full disk backups, DVD rips, that sort of thing). I picked up a 7-disk NAS tower that I'm filling with 2 TB desktop-class SATA disks. Much of this is irreplacable data - RAID failure would be very bad. I wouldn't use desktop-class drives for anything I REALLY wanted to be kept. For something like that I would use high-end server-class or NAS-class drives. With automatic backup to a really good tape drive system. And mirroring to a remote location would be good, too. And, in any case you need a really good UPS/power conditioner. And throw in some lightening protection. snip -- ArarghMail909 at [drop the 'http://www.' from -] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Noise level of two hdd in raid 0... | KILOWATT | General | 3 | October 20th 06 03:05 AM |
Raid level 1+0 problem | [email protected] | Compaq Servers | 5 | August 31st 05 12:21 AM |
Raid level write verification | teckytim | Storage & Hardrives | 13 | March 28th 05 03:19 PM |
which RAID level for write only? | Tester A. | Storage & Hardrives | 11 | September 29th 03 10:12 AM |
Epson C82 Stylus printer - Ink level indicator - True level or estimate? | [email protected] | Printers | 4 | August 1st 03 10:44 AM |