Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 22:07:56 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to recover data from dead hard drive. Message-ID: <20171021220756.c2df0a2c94298c985856e964@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <BN6PR2001MB173046D735C43B08BC97476D80430@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> References: <59DBA387.4050108@gmail.com> <20171009191435.145c9dd2.freebsd@edvax.de> <72772933-C642-43DB-AFD6-6B5D40EEF39E@fjl.co.uk> <BN6PR2001MB1730D947FADA3A9DC9A370A480490@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <D38D69CE-4771-4255-9F24-8DB27C6ABF97@fjl.co.uk> <43621.128.135.52.6.1508425321.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <4D114C69-A005-492B-B3A4-99A19CDF92E9@fjl.co.uk> <BN6PR2001MB173046D735C43B08BC97476D80430@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:11:21 +0000 Carmel NY <carmel_ny@outlook.com> wrote: > Personally, my confidence in hardware RAID far exceeds that of software > based RAID without regards to the OS. Of course, YMMV. In order of decreasing reliability: ZFS mirror - at least three ways ZFS raidz2 (perhaps equal in reliability to the mirror - but slower) Hardware mirror - at least three ways Hardware RAID6 Software mirror - at least three ways Software RAID6 Anything without at least two drive redundancy is not reliable IMHO, when a drive fails you have no redundancy until a replacement is installed and populated - which is bad enough if you have a hot spare but if you have to wait for an order cycle or worse yet for an RMA that can be an uncomfortably long time to be at risk. Hardware falls behind ZFS mainly because of the protection against silent corruption in ZFS and raidz2 lacking the write hole of RAID6. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171021220756.c2df0a2c94298c985856e964>