So i looked at this on Wiki and I am wondering how RAID-30 ought to be able to "sustain one to four drive failures while maintaining data integrity if each failed disk is in a different RAID 3 array"? While I could see this working if we had 4 arrays, i certainly don't think it'll work for a RAID 30 array with 8 disks as pictured in the wiki.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
RAID-30
- Thread starter drizzt81
- Start date
jasonlitka
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 3,794
Well, it says right in the article that they need to be in different RAID 3 arrays. The sample image only shows 2 arrays so it could only tolerate 2 disk failures, one from each array.
Yeah, my reading of the article says that it's flawed -- there's no indication where the "four" comes from -- logic of course implies up to one in each RAID 3 array, just as in RAID 10, etc. where you can have a single failure in each RAID 1 array, and no general rule says that you can have at most 4 RAID 3 arrays striped. I think the writer just slipped there.
unhappy_mage
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2005
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 11,455
It doesn't work that way. Someone with a Wikipedia account, edit it, and put something on the talk page about how it doesn't make sense. One to N, where N is the number of raid-3 sets, is more like it, and they all have to be on independent sets.
