RAID is WORTHLESS!

Sit back and relax! Talk about anything here!
Forum rules
We've moved! Head over to Synology Community (community.synology.com) to meet up with our team and other Synology enthusiasts!
User avatar
PaulS
Enlightened
Enlightened
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 1:52 pm

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by PaulS » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:21 pm

John21601 wrote:I spent my entire career using technology.
So did most people these days, especially if you consider owning a smartphone to be "using technology," which of course it is.
John21601 wrote:EVERY SINGLE ONE of all of the many disk arrays I have used over the years has FAILED. EVERY -- SINGLE -- ONE!
The odds of 3 separate systems failing all at the same time or even close to the same time are astronomical. You should start buying lottery tickets! :D
John21601 wrote:I've learned to backup, but as you probably know, you NEVER backup perfectly.
This sounds like an excuse for not having a good backup. :roll:
John21601 wrote:The FATAL flaw is the RAID system. IMHO RAID is USELESS! In order for RAID to work you need redundancy at the Google level.
Redundancy and high-availability are built on RAID foundations. RAID is a safety valve, and a very valuable one, at that - nothing more. Ultimate data availability and integrity depends alot on how these things are implemented at the user level. You had NO redundancy in your system. Your implementation was flawed.
John21601 wrote:I'm going to JOBD it. Screw it! At least when this one fails (and it WILL FAIL), I won't lose everything.
That will depend on whether or not you learned your lesson.
Last edited by PaulS on Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

subaqua25
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:55 am

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by subaqua25 » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:23 pm

adprom wrote: Classical confirmation bias. Ageing drives that start to fail in the same batch about the same time is nothing new.

If your backups aren't working properly, then you do not have them set up properly. I have set up and managed a number of NASs which has included swapping out enclosures and have not had a single unrecoverable array.
1. The 2 drives that were used for the RAID 1 were purchased from 2 different stores and the manufacture dates were over 6 months apart.

2. There is not much you can really go wrong in setting up a RAID 1 on these NAS. (buy 2 drives of the same model and setup RAID 1 volume) what more is there??

May i ask what NAS boxes you are using?

sincarne
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1578
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:57 pm

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by sincarne » Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:02 pm

subaqua25 wrote:
adprom wrote: Classical confirmation bias. Ageing drives that start to fail in the same batch about the same time is nothing new.

If your backups aren't working properly, then you do not have them set up properly. I have set up and managed a number of NASs which has included swapping out enclosures and have not had a single unrecoverable array.
1. The 2 drives that were used for the RAID 1 were purchased from 2 different stores and the manufacture dates were over 6 months apart.

2. There is not much you can really go wrong in setting up a RAID 1 on these NAS. (buy 2 drives of the same model and setup RAID 1 volume) what more is there??

May i ask what NAS boxes you are using?
Buy two different model. Fail at time apart instead of near time.

adprom
Versed
Versed
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by adprom » Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:51 pm

subaqua25 wrote: 1. The 2 drives that were used for the RAID 1 were purchased from 2 different stores and the manufacture dates were over 6 months apart.

2. There is not much you can really go wrong in setting up a RAID 1 on these NAS. (buy 2 drives of the same model and setup RAID 1 volume) what more is there??

May i ask what NAS boxes you are using?
They are still ageing drives of similar age. It is not unexpected that they mail about the same time.

I have pair of 2415+s, as well as well as manage an 1815+, a QNAP 879 Pro, QNAP 659 Pro and have previously owned/managed a QNAP 869 Pro and QNP 859.
sincarne wrote:
Buy two different model. Fail at time apart instead of near time.
See above. Similar ageing drives. Not at all unexpected.

subaqua25
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:55 am

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by subaqua25 » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:06 am

adprom wrote: They are still ageing drives of similar age. It is not unexpected that they mail about the same time.
My question then if it is the drive that's the issue and not the RAID controller/NAS, then why do drives in a RAID config much more likely to have issues? (noting that in my instance it is used in a light workload)

As noted before i have 12 WD drives atm and it's only the 2 i have in RAID 1 that's having issues. It could either be a remarkable coincidence or something going on with these lower end (DS216j) NAS systems that is causing drives to misbehave.

adprom
Versed
Versed
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by adprom » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:49 am

subaqua25 wrote:My question then if it is the drive that's the issue and not the RAID controller/NAS, then why do drives in a RAID config much more likely to have issues? (noting that in my instance it is used in a light workload)

As noted before i have 12 WD drives atm and it's only the 2 i have in RAID 1 that's having issues. It could either be a remarkable coincidence or something going on with these lower end (DS216j) NAS systems that is causing drives to misbehave.
2 drives isn't a statistically significant sample to suggest that they are any more unreliable. Over the years I have had over 70 drives in RAID arrays - and the failure pattern doesn't suggest RAID arrays are any more likely to cause failures than normal desktop usage. Simply by no more than random chance you sometimes get a couple of failures near each other. Also note that during a rebuild, it causes every sector of the drives to be read/write which if a drive is already on edge, can push them over into unhealthy territory (which is why RAID6/10 is far more reliable than RAID 5).

The fact they are both WD is no more than coincidence.

There is not sufficient data to suggest a special cause here.

I have drives with over 6 years of active run time - and some other drives die after 3 years.

I did have a spate of failures with the Seagate ST3000DM001 series (that statistically was enough data to suggest a special cause) and was verified by online where it was identified there was a drive fault.

anthsyno
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:30 pm

Re: RAID is * NOT * WORTHLESS!

Unread post by anthsyno » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:14 am

Agree Raid is not worthless. Raid 1, 10 preferred. Raid 6 if your going with more than 4 drives (maybe) otherwise Raid 10..

-Back ups are Crucial.
-Multiple back ups are best. ****
-You can never have too many forms of back up and copies of Data of importance.
-RAID is not a back up in and off itself.
That said a Raid array can be your back up if you have a primary copy of your data elsewhere.

** Note the problem with 1 Back up copy is in can be corrupted or screwed up by copy down from the primary data source.

Noted the OP did not mention their RAID type. Imagine it was SHR version of RAID 5.

The only thing I would potentially agree on is if the OP switched to individual disks and kept a good multi tiered back up strategy they might they might be better off because a single disk failure would not take down the array and potentially the data with it and would not require a rebuild. That said I would rather have both many back ups and disk redundancy. -Its like saying they would rather not wear a seat belt, life vest, bullet proof vest and helmet.

If they used Straight Raid 1, 10, think they would best served.

Matt9
I'm New!
I'm New!
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:00 am

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by Matt9 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:46 am

RAID6 and RAID10 are both pretty reliable in my experience

boggy4062
I'm New!
I'm New!
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:37 pm

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by boggy4062 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:32 pm

John21601 wrote:I spent my entire career using technology. My first computer was one I built myself because there were NO computers to buy. This was years before Jobs and Woz got together in a garage in California. My first pre-built computer came with instruction manuals that were a joke. Written in broken English you needed a degree in rocket science to decipher them. By experience with RAID goes back almost to when the first hard drives came out. (Thank God we could stop using the tape recorder!) But you young whipper-snappers probably have no idea (or give a damn) what that was like.

I have used Synology products from the 1010+ onward. IMHO if you want a disk array, Synology is the ONLY disk array to buy. Not for the hardware, mind you, but for the software. Drobo has been after me for years (I ran a small computer network for the 15 years before I retired.) but their software was, pretty much, useless. It certainly didn't pack the power of DSM.

So last night my 1513+ and two 513s failed. (Actually it was one of the 513s - long story why I had an array setup like that but it worked fine for about a year.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of all of the many disk arrays I have used over the years has FAILED. EVERY -- SINGLE -- ONE!

I've learned to backup, but as you probably know, you NEVER backup perfectly. At least it's gotten to the point where it's a nuisance when the array fails instead of my wanting to blow my brains out (as I wanted to to in the early days of disk arrays).

The FATAL flaw is the RAID system. IMHO RAID is USELESS! In order for RAID to work you need redundancy at the Google level. Multiple disk arrays and then a backup disk array and cloud storage just to be double safe. For the small business owner that is just impractical. And management of all that is a full time job. And what is the benefit of RAID? Faster save times? As I think about it I can't think of a single additional benefit other than speed that compensates you for the hassle of replacing/rebuilding a failed RAID array. And just to be clear...it is NEVER a question of IF...it is ONLY a question of WHEN! And...you can bet your next paycheck it will be at the worst possible time! RAID arrays NEVER fail just after you bought a new one and transferred all your data over.

So...when my new 1815 gets here tomorrow (thank you Amazon), I'm going to JOBD it. Screw it! At least when this one fails (and it WILL FAIL), I won't lose everything.

Maybe I'll eat my words in another year or so when the new one FAILS! But I don't think so.

It seems to me the ONLY value of a Synology disk array beyond the software and, trust me, it's worth buying one JUST for the SOFTWARE ALONE! Is the convenience of storing a butt-load of HDDs in one convenient box.

OK...I'm done my rant for today. (I can't believe how calm I am after losing nearly 30TB of data!)
Question: When was the last time you vacuumed off your server (I mean, inside)? Dust creates massive problem. It shorts internal and external connections. It will screw up motherboard connections too. I have experienced it on my desktop pC running in my bedroom (sudden blue screens, sudden mouse and keyboard freezes, etc). 15 minutes of dust blowing, vacuuming, and the machine runs like new. Just a friendly reminder.
Disks? If they don't fail withing hours or days, they will run for ever, in my experience. I also use SpinRite from time to time. This refreshes sectors, and things are peachy.
But, yes, RAID on its own is not a backup, and it poses risk. When the Raid controller (single point of failure) goes bannanas, data will be crap on all disk (and not because THEY are faulty). Having backups on other devices is a must.

Squozen
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1561
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:35 am

Re: RAID is WORTHLESS!

Unread post by Squozen » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:27 pm

I would advise against using a vacuum on electronics due to the risk of static buildup from the air rushing over plastic on the vacuum head and subsequent discharge if you touch a component. Spraying compressed air is far safer.

Locked

Return to “The Lounge”