I've been following the RAID discussion with interest. These are good comments, and fairly consistent with HOWTO's you'll find regarding RAID. There are good and bad things about it, just as with any technology where you have several ways to do something.
> Maybe we should just have a quick poll of those who use RAID ... > > 1) Which RAID level do you use, and in hardware or software? I use both RAID-1 and RAID-5. Both are Linux kernel (software). I have clients-- whose servers I manage-- using hardware RAID-5. > 2) Why do you use RAID? > a) In case a drive fails > b) Performance benefits > c) Mistaken idea that RAID is the same as doing backups > d) Other? Mostly it's in case a drive fails. I've had that happen on occasion-- the more drives you have, and the longer you run RAID servers, the higher the probability something will go awry. However, I've never lost data. > 3) If you use RAID 5, what's the biggest reason you'd use it over > RAID 1? Bang for the buck. I'm using 300GB+ drives, and having to buy 33% more drives for the redundancy (is my math right?) can get expensive across many servers. All in all, I strongly agree with the comments that RAID is no substitute for regular backups. It's nice to have an extra level of comfort (peace of mind, if nothing else) but it's foolish to think that's all you'll ever need. $0.02, Jeff
pgpbkY5uo0GHN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
