Hi guys,
I'm also in the position right now where I have to decide how to configure my new 8 bay QNAP. I have 8 3TB red discs and I was also thinking about what the ideal setup would be for that. The conclusion I draw from all that has been said above is that RAID 6 is apparently the safer solution simply because of one main factor: Raid 6 will endure the loss off 2 disc failures anywhere across the setup whereas with Raid 10 it greatly depends on where that second failure occurs. Granting that RAID 10 may survive even with more than 2 drive failures, they would have to be specific ones. If the wrong two drives fail you will end up with a total loss of data. In any case, I assume that once the first drive fails one would replace that asap, so the fact that RAID 10 may theoretically endure multiple disc failures isn't really a benefit because you won't wait for additional failures.
I don't mind a longer redistribution of data in case of a disc failure, my primary concern is surviving it altogether.
Regarding hot spares, I was told that if you use RAID 6 a hot spare is overkill, and somewhere I read that in any case swapping a new disc is preferable to a hot spare because apparently with a hot spare some of the initial boot up procedure, or whatever, is omitted and therefore less advisable (???)
Any additional thoughts on this?
I'm also in the position right now where I have to decide how to configure my new 8 bay QNAP. I have 8 3TB red discs and I was also thinking about what the ideal setup would be for that. The conclusion I draw from all that has been said above is that RAID 6 is apparently the safer solution simply because of one main factor: Raid 6 will endure the loss off 2 disc failures anywhere across the setup whereas with Raid 10 it greatly depends on where that second failure occurs. Granting that RAID 10 may survive even with more than 2 drive failures, they would have to be specific ones. If the wrong two drives fail you will end up with a total loss of data. In any case, I assume that once the first drive fails one would replace that asap, so the fact that RAID 10 may theoretically endure multiple disc failures isn't really a benefit because you won't wait for additional failures.
I don't mind a longer redistribution of data in case of a disc failure, my primary concern is surviving it altogether.
Regarding hot spares, I was told that if you use RAID 6 a hot spare is overkill, and somewhere I read that in any case swapping a new disc is preferable to a hot spare because apparently with a hot spare some of the initial boot up procedure, or whatever, is omitted and therefore less advisable (???)
Any additional thoughts on this?