I've read a number of opinions on the risks of running a RAID-5 using 4 x 2TB drives. Apparently the failure rate of the 2TB drives is so high that there is less redundancy than is generally expected.

2TB drives have been on the market for a long time now. Is this opinion founded?

If relevant, the system is Linux using md/lvm. Alternative suggestions appreciated.


Useful reading:

Apparently with storage capacities of modern SATA hard drives now reaching 2-terabytes in size, the odds of a read error during a RAID 5 disk reconstruction is becoming unavoidable.

| improve this answer | |
  • +1, good articles. Never knew about the fall of RAID 5. This might work on a solid-state drive, but in most cases, you're better off just going RAID-1 so you have a direct backup. – Breakthrough Oct 22 '11 at 23:21
  • 1
    Those articles are both a bit old. Toms is a few years old, arts is undated but the use of 20GB drives makes me suspect it's from the late 90s. Neither really reflects the current situation vs the theoretical risks. The few people I know who run SANs all advise RAID10; but thier failure tolerance is much lower than most peoples and the cost of actual HDs is a minor component of an entire SAN array. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Oct 23 '11 at 0:05
  • Last year, Art still affirmed his objections to RAID 5. – RedGrittyBrick Aug 8 '12 at 14:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.