Last edited by prototype (2009-01-24 16:50:47)
Fixed..Sup wrote:
RAID 1 5.
is a sensible optionmax wrote:
backup your data to a second set of HDDs, replace them every 5years
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-24 10:42:14)
you can get a 1TB HDD for the money Bluray recoder costs+you need to buy bluray disks which are also expensive. Also HDD can be reusedScorpion0x17 wrote:
Blu-Ray?
Yeah, I know..Sup wrote:
you can get a 1TB HDD for the money Bluray recoder costs+you need to buy bluray disks which are also expensive. Also HDD can be reusedScorpion0x17 wrote:
Blu-Ray?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-24 10:48:29)
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never..Sup wrote:
RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GB
Last edited by mikkel (2009-01-24 10:51:08)
Then don't. It's not the best solution at all. Just buy a few external hard drives. Problem solved.prototype wrote:
I am new to setting up a raid server and have limited funds but that does seem to be the best option.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-01-24 10:57:04)
mikkel wrote:
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never..Sup wrote:
RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GB
So, why's RAID used in high-end file-servers, eh, eh?Bertster7 wrote:
Then don't. It's not the best solution at all. Just buy a few external hard drives. Problem solved.prototype wrote:
I am new to setting up a raid server and have limited funds but that does seem to be the best option.
Who mentioned the word " backup"? I think you're the first.mikkel wrote:
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never..Sup wrote:
RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GB
Unless you're going for a commercial tape backup solution, which for private use seems absurd, since LTO drives are expensive, and LTO tapes are only marginally cheaper than harddrives per byte, a number that is constantly swinging further in favour of harddrives, simply storing your data on harddrives seems to be the best solution. Long term storage grade optical disks are very, very expensive, and without usage wear, harddrives will go for decades before experiencing mechanical failure.
Last edited by .Sup (2009-01-24 11:09:09)
Why is RAID used in high end file servers? I would've thought that's obvious - speed and redundancy. File servers are not the same as backup servers and I've setup enough of both for enough different companies to be well aware of the differences. Companies either use tape backup or external drives as backup. I don't know why you're talking about file servers, which are something else entirely.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never..Sup wrote:
RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GBSo, why's RAID used in high-end file-servers, eh, eh?Bertster7 wrote:
Then don't. It's not the best solution at all. Just buy a few external hard drives. Problem solved.prototype wrote:
I am new to setting up a raid server and have limited funds but that does seem to be the best option.
RAID is the best solution - if, as I've already said, you have enough drives and a mobo that has plenty of SATA ports and supports, say, RAID5 across all of them.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-01-24 11:12:01)
RAID is not a backup solution. It's used in file servers because of the redundancy and performance. Redundancy is not backup.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never..Sup wrote:
RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GBSo, why's RAID used in high-end file-servers, eh, eh?Bertster7 wrote:
Then don't. It's not the best solution at all. Just buy a few external hard drives. Problem solved.prototype wrote:
I am new to setting up a raid server and have limited funds but that does seem to be the best option.
RAID is the best solution - if, as I've already said, you have enough drives and a mobo that has plenty of SATA ports and supports, say, RAID5 across all of them.
For one, you just mentioned it. By "long term storage", backup is generally understood. The idea of storing the same data across two different media, which is what is being done in this case, is what's called a backup..Sup wrote:
Who mentioned the word " backup"? I think you're the first.mikkel wrote:
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never..Sup wrote:
RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GB
Unless you're going for a commercial tape backup solution, which for private use seems absurd, since LTO drives are expensive, and LTO tapes are only marginally cheaper than harddrives per byte, a number that is constantly swinging further in favour of harddrives, simply storing your data on harddrives seems to be the best solution. Long term storage grade optical disks are very, very expensive, and without usage wear, harddrives will go for decades before experiencing mechanical failure.
And I agree with Scorp. Honestly theres no better way to backup your data than raid if you're a "home" user. (let me know if I need to define home user)
How often does your PC read/write from/to the System drive? Thousands of times every time you use your PC.steelie34 wrote:
raid provides fault tolerance... but since the disks undergo heavy read/write usage, they fail much more often, which is why it's generally not the best for long term storage. i still say tape is the way to go...
Ah, I see what your saying.Bertster7 wrote:
Why is RAID used in high end file servers? I would've thought that's obvious - speed and redundancy. File servers are not the same as backup servers and I've setup enough of both for enough different companies to be well aware of the differences. Companies either use tape backup or external drives as backup. I don't know why you're talking about file servers, which are something else entirely.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never.So, why's RAID used in high-end file-servers, eh, eh?Bertster7 wrote:
Then don't. It's not the best solution at all. Just buy a few external hard drives. Problem solved.
RAID is the best solution - if, as I've already said, you have enough drives and a mobo that has plenty of SATA ports and supports, say, RAID5 across all of them.
RAID is not a backup solution. Redundancy is not backup. A backup server may well be configured in a RAID setup (real RAID - not RAID0, ever), but that's incidental - and the contents of the backup server will be backed up onto some external storage medium, always. RAID can play a part of a backup solution, but backup should never be geared around a RAID. Even most SANs are unsuitable for proper backup.
A few external hard drives is always the best backup solution for home users.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-24 11:25:05)
Drives are not the only components that can fail in a RAID array.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
How often does your PC read/write from/to the System drive? Thousands of times every time you use your PC.steelie34 wrote:
raid provides fault tolerance... but since the disks undergo heavy read/write usage, they fail much more often, which is why it's generally not the best for long term storage. i still say tape is the way to go...
How often does a home file-server read/write from/to the Data drives? Fewer times, only when you choose to back-up.
RAID'd HDDs can appear to fail more often, but they don't - it's just that you generally have at least 3 HDDs in a good fault-tolerant RAID array - so there is three times as much chance of a single HDD failing.
The most important part of RAID is the 'R' - which stands for 'redundancy' - this, combined with the funky error-correction algorithms used, means, that, say you have a 3-disc RAID5 set up, if one drive fails, your data will still be completely accessible and 100% correct - as long as you then replace the failed drive before another dies, you're fine - and, again, the more drives you add the safer it gets.
Like I said - lot's of small HDDs in RAID5 FTW.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-01-24 11:26:21)
Yeah, and if the controller fails you replace the controller.mikkel wrote:
Drives are not the only components that can fail in a RAID array.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
How often does your PC read/write from/to the System drive? Thousands of times every time you use your PC.steelie34 wrote:
raid provides fault tolerance... but since the disks undergo heavy read/write usage, they fail much more often, which is why it's generally not the best for long term storage. i still say tape is the way to go...
How often does a home file-server read/write from/to the Data drives? Fewer times, only when you choose to back-up.
RAID'd HDDs can appear to fail more often, but they don't - it's just that you generally have at least 3 HDDs in a good fault-tolerant RAID array - so there is three times as much chance of a single HDD failing.
The most important part of RAID is the 'R' - which stands for 'redundancy' - this, combined with the funky error-correction algorithms used, means, that, say you have a 3-disc RAID5 set up, if one drive fails, your data will still be completely accessible and 100% correct - as long as you then replace the failed drive before another dies, you're fine - and, again, the more drives you add the safer it gets.
Like I said - lot's of small HDDs in RAID5 FTW.
