I work in one of the most major DC's in Australia and I can tell you, there is a couple of servers there that use only SATA disks and mostly all of them SCSI. From all these servers, the SATA disks servers are almost guaranteed to have 2 failed drives within 24 hours of each other (I'm yet to see just "one" drive failure). Naturally, the drives are replaced within 24 hours of each other and you got it, the next failure has 2 disks in a row.
Seeing Tom's earlier post gives me quite a bit of confidence that I'm going to be able to increase redundancy even more - I only have to stop the thieves from breaking into my house and stealing my server now.
Article: Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009
in Lounge
Posted
Just thought I'd add in my 2c worth..
I work in one of the most major DC's in Australia and I can tell you, there is a couple of servers there that use only SATA disks and mostly all of them SCSI. From all these servers, the SATA disks servers are almost guaranteed to have 2 failed drives within 24 hours of each other (I'm yet to see just "one" drive failure). Naturally, the drives are replaced within 24 hours of each other and you got it, the next failure has 2 disks in a row.
Seeing Tom's earlier post gives me quite a bit of confidence that I'm going to be able to increase redundancy even more - I only have to stop the thieves from breaking into my house and stealing my server now.
Cheers