> RAID is just marketing hype unless you deal with insane amount of data, in
> the
> TB magnitude of order, spanning more than 8 disks. That is because as far
> as
> PC are concerned, RAID has no dedicated external hardware, therefore the
> motherboard is still a single point of failure in the array. If the
> controler
> goes berzerk (I've seen it once, and it's not pretty... M*A*S*H style data
> recovery), you lose both master and copy disk. RAID does only deal with
> HDD
> failures, *not* computer failures, and they happen much more often than
> expected. I'd personnaly join both disks in a single volume (like LVM in
> linux) and backup my datas somewhere else. Of course, the more disks you
> have, the more likely a failure of a single unit is to happen. That's why
> at
> 8 disks, RAID is fine because you're playing in another part of the
> statistical curve (1 failure in 8 units vs 1 in 2).
>
> --
> Manuel Viet
>
I completely agree
Tom
(who has close to 2TB in his house)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|