zlacker

>>tpmx+(OP)
HN was down because the failover server also failed: https://twitter.com/HNStatus/status/1545409429113229312

Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible.

The most impressive thing is that there seems to be no dataloss, almost whatsoever. Whatever the backup system is, it seems rock solid.

>>sillys+z
> Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible.

It's not even improbable if the disks are the same kind purchased at the same time.

>>davedu+b2
Yep: if you buy a pair disks together, there's a fair chance they'll both be from the same manufacturing batch, which correlates with disk defects.

>>spiffy+c7
This is why I try to mismatch manufacturers in RAID arrays. I'm told there is a small performance hit (things run towards the speed of the slowest, separately in terms of latency and throughput) but I doubt the difference is high and I like the reduction in potential failure-during-rebuild rates. Of course I have off-machine and off-site backups as well as RAID, but having to use them to restore a large array would be a greater inconvenience than just being able to restore the array (followed by checksum verifies over the whole lot for paranoia's sake).