*>>**What's so special about the home server needs of the folks on this list?*
This being a list catering to IT professionals and computer technologists, it should be reasonably easy to conclude that more people on this list are likely to be doing more extensive things with such technology as compared to the general population. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs a SAN at home. I'm just saying that assuming that there is NO need for RAID within *this* particular group of individuals, is shortsighted at best. Clearly, you have no need for it, and that's your prerogative. *>>**But RAID solutions - reliable ones, anyway - are not cheap. Even ones targeted for home users. And the unreliabe one are much worse than using no RAID at all.* Really? Where are you looking? You can get RAID1 options very easily AND very cheaply for a stand-alone desktop or server system, or for a dedicated NAS appliance. So, this begs several questions: - What's your definition of expensive? [1] - In what way have you found RAID1 and RAID5 solutions for desktop/workstation machines in the past 3 years to be unreliable? *>>**Like you say, disk drives are cheap. Cheap enough to keep spares on hand. A failed disk should take no more than a few hours to restore from backup.* How much easier to not have to restore the data at all *for that particular problem*, with just a little bit more planning and cash outlay. *>>**For some odd reason having your home movies from the trip do Disneyland offline for a couple of hours doesn't strike me as a critical need.* If that's all you have on your home network or home server, then by all means, continue handling it that way. Just don't assume that this is all everyone is doing. And don't seem so surprised that *some* people on a technical list might, you know, have more than a run-of-the-mill use of technology -- more so than the general populace. *>>How long do you figure the data of the typical home user of a RAID box is offline when the _box_ fails?* In your recent experience, does that happen with more or less frequency than a single drive failing? *>>**You keep spare routers and switches on hand at home? Very forwward thinking if you really can't afford the down time. Or did you run out to Best Buy?* Spare routers? Yes. I still have my Netscreen 5XP connected, but powered down as a backup to the Netgear WNR3500L that recently replaced it. Routers/Firewalls take more time to setup, so it pays (for me, anyway) to have better contingency plans associated with them. Switches don't require as much configuration, so having a spare was less of a concern. (More importantly, I had never had one fail in 12 years, across 3 different switches that I have used at home) Having said all that, I *think* I have an older one laying about somewhere (the predecessor to this one). Or, I might have given it away. Not sure. Rather than take a chance on that, I borrowed one from %work% temporarily and ordered a proper replacement from Amazon that should arrive today<http://www.amazon.com/GS724T-300-ProSafe%C2%AE-24-port-Gigabit-Switch/dp/B00358MP02/ref=pd_cp_e_2>. The BestBuy switches didn't have all the features I wanted, unfortunately. If the problem with the existing one is a power supply issue that can be fixed cheaply, then I will fix it and have a decent backup on hand for this too. *>>**People are enamored with technology. * And some people actually use it to accomplish things they consider important or useful. *>>**What's funny is that the most clueless home users have the same outlook on using RAID technology as a backup solution. I wouldn't think that I'd see the same mistaken assumptions made by people responsible for managing business networks in their day jobs. * And most clueless admins believe that if *they* aren't using a particular technology in a particular way, that it is unsuitable and inappropriate for such use. No one suggested that RAID was a replacement for backups but you. You introduced the warning into the thread when no commentary up to that point had even suggested that it was a consideration by anyone. RAID addresses availability, which some of us actually care about despite your presumption that it is unneeded in any home network. *>>I wouldn't think that I'd see the same mistaken assumptions made by people responsible for managing business networks in their day jobs. * And I would expect people to substantiate their claims of unreliability in technology before suggesting everyone is mistaken for using it. Just as RAID is a poor solution for data backups, so is data backups a poor solution for high availability. I wouldn't expect to have to explain that here, but I've been on this list for quite a while now, so less things surprise me these days. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * [1] I don't consider this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822122050&cm_re=nas_storage-_-22-122-050-_-Product for instance, to be expensive On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Jim McAtee <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew S. Baker" <[email protected]> > > To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:01 PM > > Subject: Re: Home RAID enclosure recommendations? > > > *>> Few people have a need for RAID in a home file storage solution unless >> >> it's to construct a very large volume that can't easily (or safely) be >> achieved with individual disks. * >> >> >> I would think that in large part, this list would contain most of the "few >> people" who are great candidates for RAID1, 5 or even 10. >> > > What's so special about the home server needs of the folks on this list? > > > > Disks are cheap enough that it is silly to avoid RAID, when you can easily >> have BOTH RAID and backups. >> > > But RAID solutions - reliable ones, anyway - are not cheap. Even ones > targeted for home users. And the unreliabe one are much worse than using no > RAID at all. > > > > My home network can ill afford to be down for days. >> > > Like you say, disk drives are cheap. Cheap enough to keep spares on hand. > A failed disk should take no more than a few hours to restore from backup. > For some odd reason having your home movies from the trip do Disneyland > offline for a couple of hours doesn't strike me as a critical need. > > How long do you figure the data of the typical home user of a RAID box is > offline when the _box_ fails? > > > > Just yesterday, I had >> my switch die on me at home, and it totally disrupted a number of fairly >> critical activities -- like online home school. So that got remediated >> last >> night. >> > > You keep spare routers and switches on hand at home? Very forwward > thinking if you really can't afford the down time. Or did you run out to > Best Buy? > > > People are enamored with technology. What's funny is that the most > clueless home users have the same outlook on using RAID technology as a > backup solution. I wouldn't think that I'd see the same mistaken > assumptions made by people responsible for managing business networks in > their day jobs. > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
