Poll: Are you running RAID 1?

FreshPrince

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2001
8,361
1
0
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?
 

Juice Box

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2003
9,615
1
0
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
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
RAID 0 here but about all I would lose is the OS and crap I don't worry too much about.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
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.
 

FreshPrince

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2001
8,361
1
0
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.

but it does protect from the dreaded hard drive crash...unless you're so unlucky that both hard drives crash at the same time :(
 

Armitage

Banned
Feb 23, 2001
8,086
0
0
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.

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.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
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
 

blakeatwork

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
4,113
1
81
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

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...
 

phantom309

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2002
2,065
1
0
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
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.
 

alembic5

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2002
1,004
1
81
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!
 

Hammer

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
13,217
1
81
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.
 

Fullmetal Chocobo

Moderator<br>Distributed Computing
Moderator
May 13, 2003
13,704
7
81
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Why RAID 5 and not RAID 3?

EDIT: or RAID 10?

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

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Why RAID 5 and not RAID 3?

EDIT: or RAID 10?

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

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.