Thats what I was referring to. I wasn't naming a RAID configuration a main backup, rather pointing out that having it along side a ext. HDD is a wise idea. Having a back up ext. HDD as well as a RAID config. is most definitely a secure way to store data. I would like to hear someone tell me that having your core HDD's set up w/o RAID is a better idea than with. With that being said not only will you have secure BACKUP storage but you will also have more secure PRIMARY storage which will cut down on having to rely on backup in general. Make sense?
That's true of a backup drive too. It's not like there's a magic button on the back of the enclosure that prevents filesystem damage.
This is dependant on the type of RAID, but: RAID 0 (which isn't quite RAID) is a BAD idea for desktops (actually, is a bad idea everywhere). RAID 1 is unneeded with a good backup routine, but doesn't hurt. RAID 2-4 : Get real! RAID 5 is the bigger brother to RAID 1, but on a desktop also unneeded... RAID 6 is complete overkill... And softRAID or 'onboard' RAID solutions (which often are softRAID) is also a nono for desktops (SoftRAID on dedicated machines on the other hand is absolutely awesome). So, I guess I'm the one telling you that on a desktop machine RAID is often unneeded, only adds to the complexity. EDIT: That's why a good backup routine has several (offsite) backups, with different age... And I don't know about you, but I rarely get FS corruption on my systems, compared to CD-R(w)/DVD-R(w)s
RAID0 certainly has its place, but the application is quite limited. Basically unless you absolutely need 300MB/s+ of drive bandwidth (HD video capture, umm... that's it), avoid. And even still, get a second set of disks and run it RAID10. If you're properly hardcore, you'll pick up an Xserve RAID and slam in 14 1TB drives, set up a RAID0 array on each controller and then RAID the two arrays together in software in RAID1 (Apple's recommended solution, btw) so you've got 7TB of redundant data that's approaching the limits of the fibre channel controller to which it's attached. RAID1 is NOT obsoleted with a good backup routine. It provides a zero-downtime solution, which is a huge improvement over a "boot off your firewire drive's disk image" approach in anything remotely mission-critical. Heck, provided you've got the right controller, you won't even need to reboot. RAID3 is, for all practical purposes, the same as RAID5. The former has a dedicated parity disk, while the latter rotates it. In terms of both performance and disk replacement, I expect them to be nearly identical. I don't know anything about RAID2, RAID4, or RAID6, so I think it's reasonably safe to assume I can ignore them as they're impractical for anything I'd do. My point regarding FS corruption was that it's so rare on disks that you can probably ignore it with relative safety. I've had bad DVDs, but I haven't had my OS randomly decide to spew zeroes all over the place. I know Rich will cry bloody murder about it, but he's the only person I know that's lost data to an OS crapping all over the drive. Drives die, as do all mechanical things. So will tapes, so will DVDs, so will CDs. Hypothetically, flash has no point of failure on only read operations, other than environmental stuff that would take out any other storage medium. But drives have a pretty good lifetime, are fairly durable if in a decent enclosure, and pack a lot of storage into not much space. But I think all we've really proven here is that there is no one right way to back up your data. Some things are good, some are bad, some is only appropriate in certain situations. It all costs money. Short of a nuclear blast (in which case you've got other problems higher up your priority list), S3/Mozy/etc will make sure that nothing ever goes missing provided you don't delete anything. Time Machine or other version control tools will make sure that your accidental deletions aren't permanent. RAID1 will give you zero downtime in the event of drive failure, and full-drive backups will give you next to no downtime (at least on OS X). If you want absolute data security, go spend thousands and set them all up. For most people, an external drive will be sufficient, and two with one offsite (and preferably in a fireproof safe) if you're rather paranoid.
Well Said. Same with RAID1 and RAID5. These are both very good precautionary methods that in many cases are extremely helpful. Though I have plenty of backup HDD's, I'd rather my desktop have RAID1/5 than none at all and I'm sure that others agree. Like Glider said, it doesn't hurt. P.S. though non-related, where in Belgium do you reside? I have many relatives over there.
I'd rather have 1 working and one cold spare than RAID1 on my system. I can live with 1 day downtime to reinstall and a cold spare doesn't wear... HDs might be cheap, but they cost more then I can spend, being a poor student... I'm from 'de Kempen', north of Belgium.
Ah, well that explains the Linux fetish Unfortunately, a day downtime on a critical job isn't acceptable. That, and I'm not running my entire software suite that can be reinstalled by a shell script on a USB drive containing a bunch of apt-get commands. Reactivating Photoshop, for example, would be a hellish PITA. Would it be that much of an issue for me? Probably not - but that's because I'm not a pro shooter, and backing up the code for a website is a heck of a lot easier than storing a photo shoot. Yes, you're absolutely right that a cold spare doesn't wear. However, hard drives like to spin once in a while. Too much inactivity can cause the heads to effectively fuse to the platter, and it needs to be broken free on the next spin-up (or so I've read; given the mechanical tolerance in hard drives, it seems plausible enough). Will that be an issue? Probably not. They're designed so it shouldn't be an issue. But there's a reason RAID1 is used in mission-critical environments.
Well, clearly a RAID config. is a personal preference. Obviously you have the time to work on a downed system, others do not have that luxury and by taking a day to fix something that may have been avoided in the first place could cost a lot of income. No matter what, a secondary or tertiary backup should be employed at all times. Small world, I have family in the city of Antwerp and Voortkapel. Is de Kempen considered to be in the Netherlands?
Haha, well when I searched de kempen it came up under both Belgium and The Netherlands...blame google maps. I know Voortkapel is in Belgium, if that is what you are saying... You know any Versweyvelds?
Say what?! If you disconnect your HDD while it is reading/writing then perhaps yes this is a possibility but otherwise the heads will have been moved to their resting thingy (dunno how to phrase it in english ). To be honest it sounds to me like complete bull. I would be more worried about the HDD being powered off during a r/w.
It's called the parked position. And yeah, I don't think it's too likely - killing power during write is bound to cause more damage.
i have four seperate computers in my house each with plenty of space i made the mistake once of backing to DVD and lost half of the data after the dvds got old (they weren't even cheap ones) once upon a time so now i have written a nice batch file that runs every morning to fire files around the network (and external drive) storing my files in 2 or 3 different locations takes about 20mins to run at first but now only takes a couple as it checks date updated etc http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=1547 remember that HDD lifetime is measured in number of spins if you only write to it once a day/week it should last for years and years heck get two 80GBs if that is all you need to backup should only cost you £50 and you will feel very safe i promise and whilst i know stuff like ghosting software exists i much prefer this method as it is both cheap and it gives me immediate access to the backup files should i need it
Ghosting software is meant for quickly deploying new systems or restoring to a fresh install after you've got it set up just right. It's not meant as a backup solution for normal data.
I'm sorry if this was mentioned but I plan on giving this a try. some friends recommended it to me. http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=16427261 Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) Amazon S3 is storage for the Internet. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers. Amazon S3 provides a simple web services interface that can be used to store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. It gives any developer access to the same highly scalable, reliable, fast, inexpensive data storage infrastructure that Amazon uses to run its own global network of web sites. The service aims to maximize benefits of scale and to pass those benefits on to developers. Amazon S3 Functionality Amazon S3 is intentionally built with a minimal feature set. * Write, read, and delete objects containing from 1 byte to 5 gigabytes of data each. The number of objects you can store is unlimited. * Each object is stored in a bucket and retrieved via a unique, developer-assigned key. * A bucket can be located in the United States or in Europe. All objects within the bucket will be stored in the bucket's location, but the objects can be accessed from anywhere. * Authentication mechanisms are provided to ensure that data is kept secure from unauthorized access. Objects can be made private or public, and rights can be granted to specific users. * Uses standards-based REST and SOAP interfaces designed to work with any Internet-development toolkit. * Built to be flexible so that protocol or functional layers can easily be added. Default download protocol is HTTP. A BitTorrent(TM) protocol interface is provided to lower costs for high-scale distribution. Additional interfaces will be added in the future.
while I agree hard drives are more robust, in these days of ransomware etc the write only nature of dvd-r could be seen as insurance against some neredowell messing with your backup. On the online backup side I've had a good experience with carbonite
