I need to setup a storage for my server. The hardware is a 5 bay enclosure and 5 WD RED 8TB.
I have read the statistical probability of a catastrophic failure in RAID5 (= normal RAID) rebuild after complete failure of one HD, in case there is a URE event.
This calculator according to the WD specs, gives only 4.1% of chance of a successful rebuild in case of one disk failure. I know that there are speculations about these kind of calculation, but there are still some questions in my mind:
In "normal" RAID5 (let's say mdadm raid5) if there is an URE during rebuild, does it means that the rebuild will be aborted with no other possibility, or the rebuild will continue, leaving "only" the affected data (across stripes) to be inconsistent?
Will BTRFS with its journaling mechanism lower this probability?
My storage will store video and pictures. Of course one drive failure must be tolerated, but I can accept that. A successful rebuild may deliver few corrupted files, but it cannot just stop for a single URE event.
71 Answer
RAID does not protect data, it only potentially reduces downtime in the event of a single drive failure.
First and foremost, RAID is no substitute for backups. If you do not have a backup system in place, no RAID system will prevent data loss in the event of a rebuild failure.
RAID allows potential recovery from hardware failure. BTRFS' journaling system allows recovery from filesystem errors. They don't influence each other.
RAID 6 is more expensive than RAID 5 and potentially allows recovery from two disk failures.
The answer of what RAID (if any) to use is determined by the purpose of the array.
For operating system, the goal is continued operation, and the size requirement is normally relatively small. Two drives in a mirrored (RAID 1) setup is pretty good for this. The cost of RAID 1 is high. Basically it is one half of the drives in the array. Then, keeping your data separate, RAID 5 or 6 are the most economically efficient. The "cost" is one disk for RAID 5 or two disks for RAID 6. So, basically, can you afford to reduce the overall size of your data storage capacity by one disk or two?
Now, back to the purpose of RAID. RAID protects availability of whatever is stored on the array. Backups protect the integrity AND the availability. RAID protects against a drive going bad (or two with RAID 6, or more with more sophisticated storage schemes).
The purpose of Backups is to protect data. Backups provide disaster recovery from any of a list of potential disasters. Anywhere you see me use the word backups, I mean GOOD, VERIFIED backups created using a system that you design to provide a frequency of backups that satisfies your needs, in a rotation that ensures you can recover from "Oops" errors (Hey sysadmin, I accidentally deleted this file 30 days ago), and with a copy stored offsite so your data is safe from system destruction type disasters. And your backup routine should include restoring a random file after each backup to confirm that the backup is readable.
Since drive space is not infinite, and backups can get expensive, and we're talking at the superuser level here, assume you're going to have to make a bunch of tradeoffs. Personally, I make duplicate backups on a yearly basis of an external drive that holds the stuff that I do not want to lose. I have terabytes of junk that I only keep for the convenience of not having to download it again. The stuff I keep is backed up to an external drive automatically on a weekly basis. That drive is copied twice on a yearly basis. The two copies are stored offsite. One copy in a local safe deposit box. The other at a family member's house.
So, short answer. Backups to protect your data. RAID 6 to protect availability of your system.
Edit: Another way to view this is that RAID recovery is performed block level against disk sectors. File system journaling recovery tools are at the file level.
3
