Re: RAID array for home

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:U$JltHETIBAHFAHb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bitstring <5macd0Fciiv6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, from the wonderful person Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@xxxxxxxxxxx> said
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:spAL49AI+m$GFANd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bitstring <46fe6346$0$13941$fa0fcedb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, from the wonderful person GB <NOTsomeone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DLxggNEOdl$GFAbS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bitstring <1i57tte.1eghku3cxa0yeN%me@xxxxxxxxxxx>, from the wonderful
person xmas <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> said
After a recent drive failure, I want to set up a RAID array at home both
for speed of data access and redundancy. Never set one up before, but
would like to do it in hardware rather than relying on Windows: any
recommendations?

'Don't' would probably be my first response.

'Do' would be mine!


Speed - you won't see much, if any, benefit unless you are routinely using
huge files.

RAID 1 is duplication, and there should be no speed improvement.

Which is why I assumed we were talking RAID 3, or 0+1.

Redundancy - So you have the data replicated across 2 (or more) hard
drives, but the whole thing still relies on one RAID controller, CPU,
motherboard, PSU etc. In particular if the controller goes South you may
be stuffed. If one disk fails (which is what you are guarding against) you
MAY be able to rebuild the array (assuming you can source an identical
disk), but several folks have discovered that isn't so easy either (you
don't find out until it fails, of course).

However, even if you can't rebuild the array, the one working disk still has
all the data on it, and it is still accessible. So, you still have your
precious data.

As you would if you had just copied it to another place on the network.

Which does require a network, yes?

Yep, obviously. However most PCs have a network card these days so attaching a USB drive or a NAS device is pretty easy.

And adding a NAS device is a lot more expensive than buying a simple second hard drive and using that, yes?

Because people =think= it buys them redundancy and backup and speed, where in point of fact it often does no such thing. I actually said (upthread)

It DOES buy them redundancy and backup - there are of course situations where it fails, but the same can be said of any backup strategy. If a single drive blows but everything else is still working, then all your data is still there ready to go - much easier than restoring your files over the network isn`t it, especially if you have anything like a large data-set. It`s a slow boring job waiting for 80 gig of fiels to transfer over a network for a restore operation isn`t it?

"RAID1 will help, sometimes, if the failure happens to be a HDD. I just wouldn't bother, since a cross-network backup (which you can run daily, or hourly, or whatever you like) will protect you against a lot more. Ok, you still need a backup in case the house burns down .."

So an hourly backup will prevent all data loss will it? Will it update the backup with your open files? There are plenty of places where it won`t help, and might even cause more problems relying n backing up over a network.

But for someone looking to avert data loss and hassle on a home PC it is not where I personally would spend my money (especially if I already happened to have a network and multiple PCs).

Which is you - not everyone does.

YMMV, and it's your time/money/PC so feel free to install RAID1 if you want. I shall endeavour not to say 'told you so' if it goes pear shaped.

Wow thanks. I`ll really appreciate that supperior attitude, whle you have no idea what I personally use for backing up. I have my files backed up online constantly, as well as syncing to an external hard-drive that is swapped regularly with a second drive kept in a locker at work. But hey, why let facts get in the way of an anti-raid rant?

.