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

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 20:05 -0500, Don Wood wrote: 
> If it's not for data redundancy then what is RAID for? 

Availability.

> If a backup is made why bother with RAID at all? 

Availability.

> 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? 

Redundancy != backup; redundancy increases availability.

> Isn't a backup a form of redundancy?

No,  a backup is a recovery point.  A backup represents a point in time
[and thus, inherently, in the past - not current, which is what RAID
provides].  With RAID you have redundancy which provides availability
[against a specific single point of failure] but if you delete your data
[or if the application/OS/firmware/cables/etc... do a brain-swirl on
your data]... your data is gone.



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