Published on 1st June 2010 by
Originally Posted by FractalQuote:Originally Posted by StoneyMahoneyI did the math on rebuilding RAID5 arrays from large hard drives for a storage project a couple of years ago. The error rates quoted by manufacturers, combined with the huge data storage volumes of modern disks compared with their counterparts when the RAID levels were defined, meant it was unsafe to rely on even a RAID6 with 8 drives to be able to successfully rebuild a failed disk without further errors cropping up if the disks were larger than 1TB. Looks like it won't be long until even single drives will be likely to suffer unrecoverable errors before you even fill them up. New tech pls!
That seems unreasonable. I have 6x 1.5TB discs in RAID 5 and it only takes 2 days to rebuild (while still uploading data 24/7). Considering statistically that I'm expecting to have around 1 HDD fail on me this year then it is extremely unlikely that more than one will fail at a time.
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoneyI did the math on rebuilding RAID5 arrays from large hard drives for a storage project a couple of years ago. The error rates quoted by manufacturers, combined with the huge data storage volumes of modern disks compared with their counterparts when the RAID levels were defined, meant it was unsafe to rely on even a RAID6 with 8 drives to be able to successfully rebuild a failed disk without further errors cropping up if the disks were larger than 1TB. Looks like it won't be long until even single drives will be likely to suffer unrecoverable errors before you even fill them up. New tech pls!
The tradeoffs of larger redundancy groups are greater probability of a simultaneous double disk failure, the increased time to rebuild a redundancy group, and the greater probability of encountering an unrecoverable sector during RAID reconstruction.
Originally Posted by jrs77I think it's rather funny to see so much people, that need this much capacity.
I've got two gaming/working-rigs, an ION-based media-box and a MacBook Pro... all of them 4 machines together don't have more HDD-capacity then 1TB.
Oh and even my NAS only has 2x 1TB in RAID 1.
Originally Posted by Ryu_ookami3TB seems an awful lot of data to lose when and if the drive ever fails saying that though I said the same thing about the 2TB
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.First Off if your Booting from a 1tb drive or higher your just asking for trouble. Common sense says boot and run OS from 500 gb or smaller, run a raid set up from 700 gb or smaller HDD's and only use 1 TB or greater for storage. Hell my 2 TB HDD is external and I would never use it as OS or running .exe files (I even spray painted U-Haul on it as it's nothing but storage).
But if bigger is your dream go ahead and when Hamr FAILS and you just lost your Boot sec, OS, and Porn collection you'll be sorry.
Originally Posted by AlkmaarderInteresting but a bit one sided view. There are a lot of users who have both a 64bit OS and EFI motherboard.
All Apple computers now come with both. So I am looking forward to 4TB disk in 2010. And if you are still using Windows XP 32bit or hang on to the old fashioned BIOS its YOU who are holding back development not the industry.
What do you think of this?
And yes I know this is not an Apple fan site.
Originally Posted by rickysioSo everyone needs to RAID 5 with the old 40GB drives!
I understand the fact that reliability is compromised - but surely these manufacturers would have improved reliability first? Their principal clients, are after all, the enterprise, which value reliability.
Originally Posted by wuyanxuso it's only an issue for booting, who in their right mind would only buy one single largest hard drive commercially available without a SSD?
SSD should be compulsory for new computers these days.
Originally Posted by knyghtrydaFor those of you going "but who needs that kind of space!", just try working with HD 1080p video and 18MP raw images. I'm not even talking about professional work here, just the odd project here and there or personal work. 1 TB will last you about a week if you're lucky, and even a good 8TB RAID5 setup will start to seem small once you begin racking up the projects. I'm in the process of getting a rig setup for a long personal project, and I might just duplicate my 8TB setup from home for the road just to make sure I don't have storage issues. Now that being said.... booting off anything bigger than 500GB is just stupid and a waste of space. Get yourself a SSD already!
Originally Posted by jonmcc33 I use a 2TB Samsung drive in an external USB enclosure. It only powers on when I back up data to it, which is redundantly backed up on DVD+R.
Originally Posted by outlawaolIf they are saying the problem isnt the density for the platters, but the implementation of the use of the space. Why not simply build a drive that thinks its two drives? Think of dual GPU's and you'll understand what I mean. I am sure that it could be done, its just a matter of multi disk management on a single drive. I would have no issue buying a single drive and having two 'drives' in My Computer. Anyone up for 4tb drives? :)
Originally Posted by CepheusIt's not quite that.
What he's saying is that each hard disk has a likelihood of accidentally introducing a bad sector.
This, for a raid five system will stop a rebuild in it's tracks, because it will be unable to recover that block correctly.
The more data you have, the more the chance of that happening. We've got to the point where for a RAID 5 system with 1tb hdds, the likelihood of there being a bad sector is very high. It's one of the drawbacks listed on wikipedia of having large raid 5 arrays.
Originally Posted by DanaGActually, it's not all that hard to switch a system from MBR-based booting to UEFI-based booting:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000What M$ really needs to do is make a slick way of installing the core OS files (C:\windows\*) on a flash drive (32GB should suffice (lol, my windows folder is 19GB)) and everything else on a mechanical drive, all the while making it appear to be a single seamless HD (should be easy, as iirc ntfs partitions can be mounted as a folder).
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
29th August 2014
© Copyright bit-tech