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?

  • mindlight@lemm.ee
    52·
    9 months ago

    Yeah and Titanic was unsinkable.

    If the controller in your SSD fries, it doesn’t matter how many unused gigabytes your SSD has got for relocating bad sectors. It is still fried. For you, that data is forever gone.

    This is why you have redundancy. Full redundancy. You can go for RAID1, one disk die and you still have no data loss, or go bananas with RAID6, two full disks can die and you’re still going strong.

    Ps. Spinning harddrives have had hidden sectors used for relocation of bad sectors for ages. It’s nothing new. If you have to much time on your hand, Google harddrive hidden sectors nsa.