7626
Living Room / Re: Superboyac's backup strategy revisited (revised for 2011)
« Last post by 40hz on May 19, 2011, 03:05 PM »RAID isn't a backup strategy per se. It's a strategy for data redundancy and recovery in the event of hardware failure. RAID can figure into a backup strategy - but it's not a substitute for backing up.
RAID is also oversold. IMO it's only really useful for use on a server when mirroring (RAID1) the drive holding the operating system. That provides fail-over in the event one drive unit dies.
The only problem with this strategy on a home server is the quality of the RAID controller card or subsystem on the mobo. Quality and reliability of these "consumer" or "semi-pro" controllers varies a great deal from the more expensive and better designed "enterprise" controllers.
If your RAID controller doesn't have it's own CPU and RAM, it's "consumer grade" - and you have been warned. I've seen these types of controllers malfunction and corrupt both drives in a mirror far more often than I've seen the drives themselves fail. If you do use inexpensive RAID controllers to mirror your boot drive, do yourself a favor and take periodic recovery snapshot images. Because sooner or later - you're gonna need them.
I'm seriously thinking the next home server I build is going to be configured to use laptop-type 2.5" form factor drives. They're smaller, more energy efficient, and shock resistant than regular SATA drives. And there are some new home servers already set up to use them which look quite promising. I'll likely keep minimal amounts of user data (MyDocuments, etc.) on it, and use an external array for most of my heavy (i.e. libraries and archive) storage requirements to avoid heat issues in the server case. Something from Synology, Sonnet Technologies or Granite Digital will probably be what I use for that part.
Check out the following sites for reviews and product info:
ServeTheHome
SmallNetBuilder
MyHomeServer
WeGotServed

RAID is also oversold. IMO it's only really useful for use on a server when mirroring (RAID1) the drive holding the operating system. That provides fail-over in the event one drive unit dies.
The only problem with this strategy on a home server is the quality of the RAID controller card or subsystem on the mobo. Quality and reliability of these "consumer" or "semi-pro" controllers varies a great deal from the more expensive and better designed "enterprise" controllers.
If your RAID controller doesn't have it's own CPU and RAM, it's "consumer grade" - and you have been warned. I've seen these types of controllers malfunction and corrupt both drives in a mirror far more often than I've seen the drives themselves fail. If you do use inexpensive RAID controllers to mirror your boot drive, do yourself a favor and take periodic recovery snapshot images. Because sooner or later - you're gonna need them.
I'm seriously thinking the next home server I build is going to be configured to use laptop-type 2.5" form factor drives. They're smaller, more energy efficient, and shock resistant than regular SATA drives. And there are some new home servers already set up to use them which look quite promising. I'll likely keep minimal amounts of user data (MyDocuments, etc.) on it, and use an external array for most of my heavy (i.e. libraries and archive) storage requirements to avoid heat issues in the server case. Something from Synology, Sonnet Technologies or Granite Digital will probably be what I use for that part.
Check out the following sites for reviews and product info:
ServeTheHome

SmallNetBuilder

MyHomeServer
WeGotServed


Recent Posts




