Asklemmy

43833 readers

886 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Is RAID still needed? (programming.dev)

submitted 7 months ago by Clydesdalecrusher@programming.dev to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Me and my friend were discussing this the other day about how he said RAID is no longer needed. He said it was due to how big SSDs have gotten and that apparently you can replace sectors within them if a problem occurs which is why having an array is not needed.

I replied with the fact that arrays allow for redundancy that create a faster uptime if there are issues and drive needs to be replaced. And depending on what you are doing, that is more valuable than just doing the new thing. Especially because RAID allows redundancy that can replicate lost data if needed depending on the configuration.

What do you all think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

due to how big SSDs have gotten and that apparently you can replace sectors within them if a problem occurs

True, but that's something an SSD does internally and is just there to prolong the lifespan.

You definitely still want a raid if you want to keep a system running during a disk failure. No amount of extra sectors and wear leveling will safe you from that

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

yeah but if SSD failing is now less likely that other parts of the machine it might be better to focus on a redundant server to fail over to.. it's an interesting thought. RAID isn't obsolete I don't think but it's an interesting question

[–] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hmm but in a server enviroment wouldnt it be possible for ssd to reach their wear level much faster and therefor fail due to that ( depending on the workload of course ).

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago

yeah true. I guess what I'm saying is the considerations probably have changed, I seriously doubt RAID is no longer useful though.