• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Are you running RAID 1?

F

FreshPrince

Diamond Member
yup, my trusty HDD died and it contained all sorts of important documents, mp3's, not to mention pr0n 😉

I'm kicking myself now that I didn't run RAID 1 🙁

anyone else in the same boat, or does everyone run RAID 1 nowadays?
 
happened to me...unless you own a business and crucial documents were on it.....just deal with it. You managed to get it once...it is still on the internet available for download
 
RAID1 isn?t really a backup solution since it doesn?t protect data from corruption, viruses, accidental deletion or your house burning down. I run RAID1 but also backup to an external hard drive periodically and store it at my dad?s house.
 
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
RAID1 isn?t really a backup solution since it doesn?t protect data from corruption, viruses, accidental deletion or your house burning down. I run RAID1 but also backup to an external hard drive periodically and store it at my dad?s house.
Click to expand...

but it does protect from the dreaded hard drive crash...unless you're so unlucky that both hard drives crash at the same time 🙁
 
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
RAID1 isn?t really a backup solution since it doesn?t protect data from corruption, viruses, accidental deletion or your house burning down. I run RAID1 but also backup to an external hard drive periodically and store it at my dad?s house.
Click to expand...

Agree - I run RAID1 at home & work, but it's really only protection from a disk failure. I have scripts that back up the important stuff, and occasionally burn a DVD and put it somewhere else as well.

Along those lines, we had a scare yesterday - started getting all kinds of I/O errors on the head node of our cluster 🙁 Which is a 3 disk RAID0 - yea, don't tell me, I know :| I've never been happy about that and always treat that volume as if failure is eminent. Somehow, a bios upgrade on the RAID card brought it back, but any complacency that might have been developing has been knocked flat.
 
if you are going to use striping, you need to do backups

mirroring is the middle road. if you are going to bother with raid for data protection, just go all the way up to raid 5 and don't bother with mirroring
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
if you are going to use striping, you need to do backups

mirroring is the middle road. if you are going to bother with raid for data protection, just go all the way up to raid 5 and don't bother with mirroring
Click to expand...

I actually use RAID-1 at home for my small business, but have Second Copy making continuous backups of important folders, files etc.

No solution is perfect... gotta have redundancy for anything...
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
if you are going to use striping, you need to do backups

mirroring is the middle road. if you are going to bother with raid for data protection, just go all the way up to raid 5 and don't bother with mirroring
Click to expand...
Too expensive. For home use, I run a 250 gig mirror set with hot-swappable USB external drives to back up to. It's good enough. For a production server though, RAID 5 or nothing.
 
I run a SCSI RAID 0 stripe on my gaming machine. Any important data also resides on my secondary hard drive, my file server, and my tape backup! The most important files I also have a copy at work and on my USB hard drive. Hmmm... I think I actually have too much hardware!
 
yes, i have a system at home i use as a server. it has 2 300GB SATA drives in a RAID1. it houses pictures, documents, and some roaming profiles.
 
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Why RAID 5 and not RAID 3?

EDIT: or RAID 10?
Click to expand...

RAID 5 is considered to be more effecient <sp> than RAID 3. RAID 10 = 50% disk useage for redundancy, and it requires 4 disks.
 
Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Why RAID 5 and not RAID 3?

EDIT: or RAID 10?
Click to expand...

RAID 5 is considered to be more effecient <sp> than RAID 3. RAID 10 = 50% disk useage for redundancy, and it requires 4 disks.
Click to expand...

Well, according that site, it reads faster, but its slow on writing. Plus, it seems 3 is a little more "fail-proof" considering theres less impact in the event of a drive failure.

Sorry, dunno much about raid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top