[GRLUG] To Raid, or not to Raid, that is the question.

[Mike Williams]

On 03/09/2011 08:05 PM, Don Wood wrote:
> If it's not for data redundancy then what is RAID for? If a backup is made
> why bother with RAID at all? I'd rather have a RAID 1 than a backup.
> Although my preference would be RAID 1 with a backup. But really, RAID is a
> form of redundancy so why not use it as such? Isn't a backup a form of
> redundancy?
They are both forms of data redundancy but with different priorities. As 
Adam Williams (no relation) said, RAID is for uptime rather than data 
security. In the simple case of a hard drive failure, RAID lets you keep 
going without interruption, where backup takes the system down until you 
restore the backup. However, RAID is of no help at all for accidental 
deletion of files or file system corruption. Generally, the best 
solution is to have both.

And I agree on Linux's software RAID. The $35 RAID card you're thinking 
of is almost certainly doing RAID in software anyway and is little more 
than a regular hard drive controller, a BIOS, and a fancy driver. LVM on 
top of RAID is an excellent way to go if you have the expertise to get 
it all running. It was fairly miserable to do by hand last time I tried 
it, but that was years ago and I think the situation is much better now.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.