RAID 5 Whoopsie...

[b00merang69]

I had 2x 4TB RED's in Raid 1 (2 Bay ext E-SATA/Caddy), ran out of space and wanted more speed to feed the internal SSD's so added 2 more RED's (4 Bay ext E-SATA/Caddy) for Raid 10 so twice the Capacity/Speed).

Not had issues with either but I did pull one HDD from the 2 Bay once to test if it would still be readable in Windows as some are not but it was fine and then I wiped the single HDD and tested if it would rebuild back in the bay and it did but took overnight.

I would never even dream of using Raid 5/6 etc they are not worth using today.

 

[Amraam]

You see the irony in asking about rebuild times for old mechanical drives in a thread started because of a failure of a mechanical R5 array using old drives to rebuild?

The main three reasons for R5 are redundancy, space and speed. Given 300GB drives aren’t really ticking the last two boxes, you’d probably be better looking at something flash based and if redundancy is a priority running R1. That said the failure rate on flash should be significantly lower than multiple mechanical drives anyway.

Yup, and I've learned my lesson. All my data is gone. Whilst I could take it to a pro and probably get some back, it's not life critical that I do so I'll not bother and chalk it up to user (me) stupidity. No more RAID for me, as I don't really need it and of course rely on backups! I'm probably going to rely on cloud storage from now on, and if I do look to build a plex server then I'll just house my movies on a some 1TB SSDs when they become cheap.

 

[Armageus]

I would never even dream of using Raid 5/6 etc they are not worth using today.

RAID 6 still has it's place imo - currently looking at it for our CCTV Storage (as we presently run multiple RAID 0 disk shelves), space is of a priority, so RAID10 not really an option. RAID6 will at least tolerate a failure (or 2) and at least allow the array to stay up long enough to copy the data elsewhere.

 

[b00merang69]

True.