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?

  • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
    4·
    9 months ago

    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·
      9 months ago

      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·
        9 months ago

        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·
          9 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.