News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Mini NASes marry NVMe to Intel's efficient chip. Parent comment

Re:Mini NASes marry NVMe to Intel's efficient chip by Dylan16807 on Saturday July 05, 2025 @02:14AM (#44470465)
Were those arrays doing regular scrubs, so that they experience rebuild-equivalent load every month or two and it's not a sudden shock to them?

If your odds of disk failure in a rebuild are "only" 10x normal failure rate, and it takes a week, 5 disks will all survive that week 98% of the time. That's plenty for a NAS.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mini NASes marry NVMe to Intel's efficient chip by dwedge on Saturday July 05, 2025 @06:54AM (#44471796)
If the drives are the same age and large parts of the drive haven't been read from for a long time until the rebuild you might find it already failed. Anecdotally around 12 years ago the chances of a second disk failing during a raid 5 rebuild (in our setup) was probably more like 10-20%
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mini NASes marry NVMe to Intel's efficient chip by Dylan16807 on Saturday July 05, 2025 @07:17AM (#44471914)
> and large parts of the drive haven't been read from for a long time

Hence the first sentence of my three sentence post.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mini NASes marry NVMe to Intel's efficient chip by dwedge on Saturday July 05, 2025 @09:15AM (#44472596)
If I wanted to deal with snark I'd reply to people on Reddit.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mini NASes marry NVMe to Intel's efficient chip by Dylan16807 on Saturday July 05, 2025 @03:58PM (#44475109)
My goal isn't to be rude, but when you skip over a critical part of what I'm saying it causes a communication issue. Are you correcting my numbers, or intentionally giving numbers for a completely different scenario, or something in between? Is it none of those and you weren't taking my comment seriously enough to read 50 words? The way you replied made it hard to tell.
[ Parent | on HN ]