I always like to have a hot spare. But not having a hot spare might be okay if they have a cold spare on hand and are willing to run with reduced redundancy until it can be installed.
Part of the motivation for RAID 6 is the probability of errors occurring during a RAID 5 rebuild. The smaller size and higher speed of the SSDs might reduce that risk to an acceptable level (dunno -- I haven't run the number and haven't stumbled across any articles discussing it). Edward From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J- P Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 6:11 AM To: NT Subject: [NTSysADM] raid 5? in 2016 So I inherited this server , (sitting on site since February) low and behold when I fire it up it turns out that whoever set it up used all 8 discs in a raid 5 (granted they are only 500gb enterprise ssd's ) but still raid 5? and no hot spare? I'm trying to figure what the purpose of this server is/was, but aside from a losing some space wouldn't a raid 6 and hot spare make MUCH more sense? I'd like to move some of their VMs to it, as it is a brand spanking new r730 with 96gb of ram
