I've been considering a move to Windows Storage Spaces (single box, not S2D), with 8 HDD in a 4-column mirror configuration.
My thought had been that this would provide fault tolerance comparable to RAID 10 ... worst case tolerating 1 failure, best case tolerating 4 failures. But in doing more reading it seems that no matter how many columns, mirrored storage spaces won't tolerate more than one drive failure.
See for example: Windows Storage Spaces - 4+ drive mirror not really RAID 10? : sysadmin
Is that correct? If so, how does anyone get comfortable with that? I know rebuild time should be shorter than in a RAID5 array, but still, it seems like playing with fire. I've seen posts on this site from folks that have used Storage Spaces in massive deployments so there must be a way. Parity space performance is poor enough that it doesn't really seem like an option.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
My thought had been that this would provide fault tolerance comparable to RAID 10 ... worst case tolerating 1 failure, best case tolerating 4 failures. But in doing more reading it seems that no matter how many columns, mirrored storage spaces won't tolerate more than one drive failure.
See for example: Windows Storage Spaces - 4+ drive mirror not really RAID 10? : sysadmin
Is that correct? If so, how does anyone get comfortable with that? I know rebuild time should be shorter than in a RAID5 array, but still, it seems like playing with fire. I've seen posts on this site from folks that have used Storage Spaces in massive deployments so there must be a way. Parity space performance is poor enough that it doesn't really seem like an option.
Any advice would be much appreciated.