Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:40:01 -0700
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:06:01 -0700, Sternkreuzer
<Sternkreuzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup technique, that is
*not* what it is, since it's subject to simultaneous loss of the
original and the mirror to many of the most common dangers threatening
your data--severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, user
errors, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most companies that
use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in place.
Read my thoughts on backup here:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
I just finished reading your article and found it most informative.
Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.
I would
like to pose the same question as to the previous replies:
What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was reading
about recently at
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm
I know nothing about it, but if it's RAID mirroring, I repeat that
it's a poor choice for home users.
They discuss using RAID 1, 5 or 10, presumably with internal Hard Drives,
RAID is always with internal drives.
and they also discuss making a Recovery Disk. However they do not seem to be
very clear about what the difference is between the two... They certainly
promote their methods as the ideal solution to solving the issues of keeping
the data of the home user safe.
I completely disagree. Again, don't mix up redundancy, which is what
RAID 1 provides, with backup.
The classic example of the need for redundancy is an airline
reservation system. If a drive is lost and the system has to go down
to restore a backup, *millions* of dollars in revenue can be lost
during the down time, because customers are fickle and will take their
business elsewhere while the system is down. Because that can't be
tolerated, redundancy is required, using RAID 1 (or some similar
mirroring system).
Home users very rarely have a need anything like that. If your system
is down for an hour or even a few, while you restore from a backup, it
may be a minor nuisance, but that's all. The home user needs, most of
all, to be sure that the backup always exists. That's why it's
critical that backup be on external media, not stored within the
computer.
Making an iso copy with Acronis True Image sounds like a great way to have a
recovery disk on hand. Is this product at the "user friendly" level?
Yes, I think it's very easy to use.
Also the
information about the danger that a full back-up poses when it overwrites the
old back-up is certainly an item to consider....
That's why the best choice is to use two (or more) external drives,
and alternate between them. That way the act of creating a backup is
never also the act of destroying your only backup.
Especially in these days of very inexpensive hard drives, that latter
alternative is what I recommend.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.
- References:
- Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- From: Sternkreuzer
- Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- Next by Date: Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- Next by thread: Re: Is RAID 1 enough?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
