|
|
|
|
|
by klodolph
1986 days ago
|
|
Efficiency is how much overhead you have. RAID 10 has 50% efficiency (50% of your storage is used for data), RAID 6 has N/N+2 efficiency. Since RAID 10 means using 4 drives, RAID 10 is never more efficient than RAID 6 for the same number of drives. The three main things we can optimize for are storage efficiency, I/O performance, and data durability. For most situations, RAID 6 is not Pareto-optimal. In other words, you can come up with solutions that have better storage efficiency, better I/O performance, or better data durability, without sacrificing anything. The only reason you’d use RAID 6 is because it’s easy to use. It’s measurably worse on any other axis. Combine this with various low-quality RAID implementations and RAID is even worse. Software RAID in the Linux kernel is fairly robust but there are many low-quality hardware RAID implementations. |
|
One of the often overlooked aspects of RAID is that the more complexity there is in the controller the higher the risk of losing your data due to hardware/firmware/software error. The worst part is these errors often don't appear until your array is already compromised in some way, so everything is fine until a single disk failure triggers a previously unknown bug that causes the rebuild procedure to clobber all of the data on all of the drives.
I've known some professionals who use RAID1_0 whenever they can get away with it because they don't trust RAID controllers to handle anything more complex.