Poll: hdd redundancy
Hello,
I'm gauging deployment strategies and would like to get your opinion on the following
lowend storage redundancy
- when buying storage I prefer to25 votes
- pay a little more and have some redundancy like raid5 or raidz180.00%
- pay a little less and take my chances without any redundancy20.00%
Tagged:

Comments
If stuff fails too quickly, I'm forced to invest more time fixing it.
And time is precious.
I would pay a bit more for redundancy.
RAID is not backup. RAID failure = disk change = RAID array rebuilding, which can fail and take the remaining disk with it. So I see RAID as a 2x chance of fail. I prefer full disk backups or data backups.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
Mentally strong people use RAID-0.
best of "yoursunny lore" by Google AI 🤣 affbrr
Depends on what "little more" means, but I'd lean towards less on the basis that I wouldn't really look towards LES class providers for mission critical data
that was my thought as well. the data I usually deploy on les provider is A-not senstive and B-not critical
that's the point of this poll. it seems folks would prefer some redundancy
Well, I guess people who want RAID are still putting mission critical data on LES providers and not keeping any backups... Live and learn I guess?
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
Host-C | Storage by Design | AS211462
“If it can’t guarantee behavior under load, it doesn’t belong in production.”