General > General Technical Chat
modern storage is crazy
<< < (11/14) > >>
tooki:

--- Quote from: DiTBho on April 26, 2022, 11:14:35 am ---Anyway, what I am doing is not *THE* point, but rather if those modern 14TB disks are as reliable as the smaller ones I am using.

Personally I don't think so; as I understand it, modern disks are less reliable, so let's fix the problem with RAID? For example, RAID-6 appears to be mandatory for that Synology 8-bay drive.

--- End quote ---
Whatever gave you the idea that modern disks are less reliable?!?

For years and years, the only pattern in disk failure has been that some individual models have proven to be abnormally unreliable in the long run. But those failures have not, in the long run, shown there to be any particularly good or bad eras for the whole industry, and rarely even for a brand. (With the arguable exception of the IBM/Hitachi/WD DeskStar models, which have had exceptionally good reliability for the past decade or two, after a single bad model around the year 2000.)
jpanhalt:
Pure dogma and semantics.  What happens when backups are destroyed in a fire or flood?  Same scenario.  There are degrees of safety offered by redundancy.  Backups are just another form of redundancy.  As reliability of storage increases, the need for multiple methods of redundancy decreases.

An analogy can be made to trans-ocean commercial flights.  Used to require more than 2 engines.  Now just 2 is OK.  Engines are more reliable today.
PlainName:

--- Quote ---An analogy can be made to trans-ocean commercial flights.  Used to require more than 2 engines.
--- End quote ---

That's not an appropriate analogy. And that's assuming you equate engines to storage means - if you actually relate them to drives then it's even less appropriate.

I think the web fora go-to analogy involves a motor car, if you can figure one out... :)
jpanhalt:
What about "redundancy" did you miss?
PlainName:
So, what do engines relate to? Are you saying that with more reliable drives we don't need as many backups? Surely if drives are becoming that reliable we wouldn't be needing every-increasing numbers of units in a RAID array and could manage with just RAID1.

But we'd still need backups just as regularly as now.


--- Quote ---What about "redundancy" did you miss?
--- End quote ---

Well this is why I suggested your analogy was inappropriate. You seem to be saying that because engines are more reliable we only need two whereas before we needed more. Which literally translates, as noted above, to fewer drives in an array. But for data protection it is meaningless - if you fly through a cloud of volcanic ash, two or four engines isn't going make a lot of difference. A bunch of geese on takeoff will still see you in the Hudson. Maybe you meant parachutes were still needed despite better engines?
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod