On mySimon: Cat Mate C20 Automatic Pet Feeder
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

May 19th, 2009

RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays

Posted by Robin Harris @ 11:14 am

Categories: Disk drives, RAID

Tags: Data, RAID 5, RAID, Storage, Hardware, Robin Harris

Big storage companies stopped recommending RAID 5 a couple of years ago. But I still see small 4-drive arrays touting RAID 5 for home and small office use.

Big mistake. You want to save money, but you also want to keep your data. RAID 5 isn’t worth it.

What’s the problem?
The problem is that RAID 5 only protects against a single disk failure. But SATA drives are spec’d at one Unrecoverable Read Error (URE) every ~12.5 TB.

Let’s do the math.

In a small 4 drive array using 2 TB disks, if you lose a disk you have 6 TB - 3 drives - of remaining capacity. That includes the parity data used to reconstruct the data lost on the failed drive.

Reading through that 6 TB you have a better than 40% chance of encountering an URE - and at that point the disk rebuild will stop since the RAID controller doesn’t have the information it needs to reconstruct your data.

Then you pull out your backup copies. You have backups, right?

How to use a small RAID array.
4-drive arrays have lots of advantages: cost; performance (with FireWire or eSATA) fast enough for HD video editing; and portability.

But if you care about your data, RAID 5 is too big a threat. And if you don’t mind risking your data - as in performance driven apps like video editing where the data copies are on tape or another disk - RAID 0 (striping) is cheaper and faster.

Most small arrays come with a RAID 1 (mirroring) option that copies your data to 2 different disks. Lose 1 and the other should have it - subject to the occasional URE.

If you want availability and better performance use RAID 1+0 - often abbreviated RAID 10 - which combines mirroring and striping to provide 2 complete copies of your data with the performance of 2 striped drives.

The Storage Bits take
The attraction of RAID 5 is that it gives you 3 drives worth of capacity on a 4 drive array - but at the cost of having to use backups if an URE is encountered. Better to use RAID 1 and get 2/3rds the capacity of RAID 5 with a much lower chance of data loss.

The biggest storage mistake consumers make is to believe that any storage device is 100% safe. It isn’t.

Maintain at least 2 copies of any data you value. If the data is vital, make that 3 copies. And if thinking about RAID levels makes your teeth ache, consider a Drobo or the new Drobo Pro.

Storage is cheap. Use lots.

Comments welcome, of course. Check out an earlier post Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009 for more details on the RAID 5 problem.

Robin HarrisRobin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.


Email Robin Harris

Subscribe to Storage Bits via Email alerts or RSS.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 44 Talkback(s)
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays
Drobo is too slow for production server anyway - it's a
perfect back up device...

There is a Hardware RAID5 five drive available, no driver
needed
Read the rest)
Posted by: AQuyen Posted on: 12/04/09 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Drobo  mcfaul@... | 05/19/09
Drobo isn't a striped RAID array  Robin HarrisZDNet Moderator | 05/19/09
yes it is  mcfaul@... | 05/19/09
2 copies.  thewelshboy | 05/21/09
Two drobos are not cost practical  georgeou | 05/26/09
Drobo uses a mixure of RAID technologies including RAID-5  georgeou | 05/19/09
I don't get it  po_134@... | 05/19/09
Robin mistakenly believes the Drobo doesn't use RAID-5  georgeou | 05/19/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  mcfaul@... | 05/19/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  po_134@... | 05/19/09
So long as two disks don't fail at once, you're good to go  georgeou | 05/19/09
That's exactly the problem  rosanlo | 05/20/09
Tine is not the only enemy  techr@... | 05/20/09
That's exactly the problem? (RAID 6)  Yndoendo | 05/20/09
I never said RAID equals backup  georgeou | 05/26/09
The solution to this is obvious  theshowmecanuck@... | 05/30/09
The REAL problem here ...  George Mitchell | 05/19/09
Another perspective  Richard Flude | 05/19/09
Doesn't make sense  sanjaydhar | 05/19/09
re:Doesn't make sense  subnetmask255x4 | 05/20/09
Drive maintenance ...  George Mitchell | 05/20/09
soft vs. hard raid  emilp | 05/21/09
it's not about bad blocks  subnetmask255x4 | 05/21/09
Sans RAID ici  johnfenjackson@... | 05/20/09
Day of reckoning  wkulecz | 05/20/09
ADG? SAS?  tdasherjr | 05/20/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  cerving | 05/20/09
Chances of failure  cburkitt2 | 05/20/09
Has this person been a sysadmin?  someitguy79 | 05/20/09
someitguy79 contact me about RAID RECOVERY PLEASE  djzoey | 05/20/09
What about RAID-1 ??  websquad | 05/20/09
The key advantage of RAID 1 is ...  George Mitchell | 05/20/09
potentally  someitguy79 | 05/21/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  dave.schutz@... | 05/20/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  monkeyman1140@... | 05/20/09
Bingo!  snafu_77 | 05/25/09
RAID 6 anyone  James Schroer | 05/20/09
Don't you love percentages?  terrykuntz | 05/20/09
always use scrubing for raid5  emilp | 05/21/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  zdneter0000 | 05/21/09
I've given up on RAID  LarryPTL | 05/21/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  bb_apptix | 05/26/09
RAID 1 and single disk failure  subnetmask255x4 | 05/26/09
RE: RAIDfail: Don't use RAID 5 on small arrays  AQuyen | 12/04/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here