On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 05:18:23PM -0500, Andrew Plumb wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:36:55 +0000, Greg Cope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem is that there is *NO* economical backup solution for > > > end-users with hundreds of GB of data. The only thing that comes close > > > is to have another RAID in another machine that you mirror to. > [deletia] > > 400Gb drives are becoming common and cheap. > > > > Plus a surge plug is not that expensive. > > For me it's more an all-eggs-in-one-basket/HDD issue, less of a > backup/archival issue. Also, this machine was a fully UPS'd machine; > expired warranty killed it, not surges. ;-) > > Yes, to get an equivalent amount of real storage in a RAID > configuration I'd need 3x200GB (2 storage + 1 error correction) or
Why would you want to do RAID for a backup machine? Assuming we are talking disks full of backups, you already have 2 copies of that data, so you are not in trouble if a drive fails, you just put up a new one and backup the original data again. RAID is for systems that need to be always up, that dare not be taken down to replace a drive etc. That's not true of backup servers.
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
