On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Donald E Haselwood wrote:
> Would RAID-1 be a good idea to avoid the problems from that "yearly" HD
> crash?
>
> A partition on my 160 GB drive that holds my Suse9.2 came up with errors.
> Fortunately, it was a partition that held some old backup files so nothing
> important was lost. I do have my important data files well backed up, but
> if the partition holding the system fails it takes a lot of time to get
> everything setup.
Well, I'd be very hesitant to back up to the same device. Yes, it protects
you from random filesystem damage, but I had a (30GB?) drive where the best
I could figure was the head periodically went across the entire disk writing
garbage. It wouldn't protect you from that, or from any one of other
systemic failures.
> I was wondering if RAID-1 with a second HD would be
> better than, say, merely copying the whole partition, or some similar
> backup scheme.
That's what I do (nightly copy), to avoid the extra heat and noise (and
setup hassle?) of RAID. The backup drive stays spun down when not in use.
Also, I figure if both drives are used about the same amount, they'll fail
about the same time in the same subsystem. With a periodic backup, files
are at most 1 period old. If this isn't acceptable, consider RAID then.
-- -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.no-ip.org:81An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all. -Oscar Wilde ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:39:11 EDT