Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 08:23:43 -0700
Jonny wrote:
> RAID 0 splits the system on two physical hard drives.
Two *or more* physical drives.
> If one fails,
> you have nothing.
> RAID 1 backs up the first hard drive to the second one.
No, it *mirrors* the drive. Do not confuse mirroring with backup.
Mirroring is *not* suitable for using as backup. Mirroring is a technique
used for a situation in which downtime can't be tolerated. If, for example,
you're running an airline reservation system, you don't have time to restore
backups; the customer goes elsewhere while you restore. Raid 0 creates a
mirrored drive and lets the computer automatically and seamlessly change to
using the mirror drive if the primary one fails. When you mirror, you still
need a separate backup, because relying on a mirror leaves you vulnerable to
most of the common dangers to your drive(s), such
as severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even
theft of the computer.
Secure backup needs to be on media stored externally to the computer. For
really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business
depends on your data) there should be multiple copies of the media, with at
least one copy stored off-site.
>
> In RAID 1, if the first hard drive shows signs of failing, not
> holding all the data, the same thing will be mirrored to the second
> hard drive.
> If you backup your own data to another location, none of this matters.
Yes it does. See above. Backup is normally needeed even if you mirror.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
> If you want the latest technology for its own sake, do so. But
> don't use that for an excuse to change your habits or to rely on the
> technology to replace what you're already doing. As it doesn't as
> you imply. ............
> "Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:e$R6fLuHGHA.3036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I'm looking at buying a new XP computer. I have been researching
>> whether to
>> choose a RAID setup or a non-RAID. The RAID comes with an
>> "Integrated Serial ATA RAID controller." Of the RAID, RAID 0 seems
>> like the logical choice (I have no special data protection needs to
>> warrant the mirroring of
>> RAID 1, the other choice). Getting the performance boost sounds
>> great. What I'm considering, though, is that I may be just fine with
>> the older SATA-type setup that I have in my 98SE computer. I back
>> up my data. If I choose the non-RAID configuration, will I be "behind the
>> times"
>> as far
>> a technology goes? Is there a compelling reason to consider the RAID
>> performance, where data recover may be more challenging if there's a
>> problem?
>>
>> Thanks for any thoughts!
>> Ellen Hall
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Jonny
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- References:
- RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Ellen Hall
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Jonny
- RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Prev by Date: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Next by Date: Re: Problem with Printer
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Next by thread: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|