Reading raid(4) [1] it looks like RAID-6 is not supported: I would think with drives sizes being what they are in recent years (decades?), protection from a double-fault during a re-stripe would be important. Or is RAIDframe mostly supposed to be used for 'smaller situations' (like a boot drive)?
I first ran across the "RAID-5 is dead" 'meme' almost twenty years ago, with concerns that when drives reached >2TB you get higher chances of failed rebuilds due to BER / UER rates:
Reading raid(4) [1] it looks like RAID-6 is not supported: I would think with drives sizes being what they are in recent years (decades?), protection from a double-fault during a re-stripe would be important. Or is RAIDframe mostly supposed to be used for 'smaller situations' (like a boot drive)?
[1] https://man.netbsd.org/raid.4
I first ran across the "RAID-5 is dead" 'meme' almost twenty years ago, with concerns that when drives reached >2TB you get higher chances of failed rebuilds due to BER / UER rates:
* https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-20...
See also 2013 follow-up:
* https://www.zdnet.com/article/has-raid5-stopped-working/
With ZFS support in NetBSD, I would expect one would use ZFS for bigger storage situations, keeping RAIDframe for special cases (e.g. boot/root)