Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Would it be fair to say that "preventing data loss", broadly speaking, requires defense in depth, and that RAID alone is not sufficient?

If so, then both things in the gp are true: raid isn't enough, and can be a false sense of security.



Given the context, why would raid and hdfs not be equivalent?


RAID is distributed across drives on one machine. That whole machine can fail. Plus, it can take a while to recover the machine or array and it is common for another drive to fail during recovery.

HDFS is distributed across multiple machines, each one which can have RAID. It is unlikely that enough machines will fail to lose data.


I believe that its essentially equivalent and neither raid nor hdfs are good enough to exist without backups.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: