RAID-F vs tRAID
|Real-Time RAID||Yes, but experimental||Yes|
|Live data reconstruction in the case of a drive failure?||No. The failed drive must be recovered.||Yes|
|Various RAID engines and Multi-Parity support||Yes||Yes|
|Are surviving drives fully readable/writable even in the event of failure past the tolerance level?||Yes||Yes|
|Supports drives with existing data on them?||Yes||Yes|
|Can a drive be pulled from the RAID and read in another system standalone?||Yes||Yes|
|Supports any file system||Yes||Yes|
|OS support?||Windows and Linux||Windows and Linux|
|Can RAID include specific folders, specific data set, media drives, and ad-hoc content?||Yes||No|
|Ability to exclude certain content from the RAID?||Yes||No|
|Recovery of specific files||Yes||No, only recover a whole drive. Has no concept of files.|
|Supports network mapped drives as part of the RAID?||Yes||No|
|Can upgrade from a small drive to a bigger drive by just copying the data over and without affecting parity?||Yes||No|
|Vulnerable to the Snapshot RAID sync hole?||- Yes if Snapshot RAID (see Understanding the limitations of Snapshot RAID)|
- No, if Real-Time RAID
As you can see, tRAID is not a replacement for RAID-F.
RAID-F makes some pretty compelling arguments.
Where tRAID wins over RAID-F is in that its real-time RAID feature is far more robust.
As stated above, please also read the detailed text comparison of Transparent RAID vs. RAID over File System.