Re: RAID array for home

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EiCxaNE+aMAHFAUM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bitstring <5mb23dFb7samU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, from the wonderful person
Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@xxxxxxxxxxx> said
"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 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?

Why do you keep asking questions to which we both know the answer? NAS is,
which is why I mentioned USB too. However NAS has a lot more going for it,
doesn't it.

Yes NAS has a lot going for it, but it is considerably more expensive than
simply putting a second drive in the original machine.

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

That's the point - frequently it isn't. Read all about it from the people
who tried. OK, we know that failures get a lot more airtime than
successes, but there are =enough= reports of problems for it to be an
issue.

But frequently it IS the case that everything else is still working. For
the sake of doubling the cost of your data store (and considering how cheap
hard drives are it`s not a significant cost) it`s certainly worth
considering isn`t it?

- 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?

If I'm in a rush I'd just restore the minimum set, and use the bulk of the
data remotely. If the backup disk is on a 'real PC' as opposed to a
headless server, I'd just walk to that PC and work from there.

What if the 80 gig IS your minimum set? Any large number of gig is a pain
to send over a network.

"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?

Nor will RAID1 for many values of 'open', because they'll be in RAM.
NOTHING will prevent ALL data loss, it's a matter of what will you put up
with.

How about recently updated files, with an hourly/daily backup plan you risk
the loss of a significant amount of work that is done between saving and
backup.

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?

It wasn't a rant, it was my opinion. Somebody asked, I answered . . . all
you have done is bitch at me (and now, apparently, state you don't use
RAID1 anyway? Or at least are not relying on it for protecting your data,
which is exactly what I'm saying). So why are you such a rabid RAID1
supported that you can't bear to hear any adverse opinions??

I don`t use it because, for me, it isn`t an appropriate solution. I had the
extra money available to implement the solution that I felt was most
appropriate for me. I have used RAID1 in the past, and found it to be a
very useful way of minimising a numebr of risks to my data.

.