RAID-10 is far more efficient not only as a transfer speed but also as redundancy across large arrays. It’s only nerf is storage inefficiency.
RAID-6 requires serious computing oomph to create the parity bits, which dramatically slows down writes and rebuilds. It also needs only two drive losses across any one array before the whole array dies. Conversely RAID-10 has only duplication, no parity, so compute load is far lower and writes/rebuilds are a lot faster, and it can have up to half of all drives fail before the array is irretrievably broken.
If OP can’t afford the storage for ‘just a bunch of disks’, then paying twice as much for 100% redundancy in RAID10 is doubly unaffordable.
Also, consider what is being stored here. It’s music files that we obtained from a torrent. We need sufficient raw performance to read a few megabytes per minute so we can listen to them. As a bonus, we may wish to upload the torrent again, and can use any spare capacity for that. What benefit are you going to obtain from your very expensive storage solution?
RAID6 can lose any two drives, but at most two. RAID-10 can lose only 1 drive with guaranteed no data loss. Losing two might lose the cluster, if you lose a drive and its mirror. Yes, if you’re really lucky, you can lose up to half, but ‘feeling lucky’ isn’t how we plan data storage. Doesn’t matter, we’ve got a backup - download the torrent again ;-)
Research RAID more effectively.
RAID-10 is far more efficient not only as a transfer speed but also as redundancy across large arrays. It’s only nerf is storage inefficiency.
RAID-6 requires serious computing oomph to create the parity bits, which dramatically slows down writes and rebuilds. It also needs only two drive losses across any one array before the whole array dies. Conversely RAID-10 has only duplication, no parity, so compute load is far lower and writes/rebuilds are a lot faster, and it can have up to half of all drives fail before the array is irretrievably broken.
Yeah yeah, I know RAID.
If OP can’t afford the storage for ‘just a bunch of disks’, then paying twice as much for 100% redundancy in RAID10 is doubly unaffordable.
Also, consider what is being stored here. It’s music files that we obtained from a torrent. We need sufficient raw performance to read a few megabytes per minute so we can listen to them. As a bonus, we may wish to upload the torrent again, and can use any spare capacity for that. What benefit are you going to obtain from your very expensive storage solution?
RAID6 can lose any two drives, but at most two. RAID-10 can lose only 1 drive with guaranteed no data loss. Losing two might lose the cluster, if you lose a drive and its mirror. Yes, if you’re really lucky, you can lose up to half, but ‘feeling lucky’ isn’t how we plan data storage. Doesn’t matter, we’ve got a backup - download the torrent again ;-)