We're having some discussions about archiving digital files. Currently,
certain files are backed up onto DVD's. We're wondering if we can move to
larger capacity external hard drives instead. Our entire system gets a digital
tape back-up performed by an outside company, but there can be a
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:14 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This part..maybe your terminology is confused..you say they get more
realiability with 'redundant disk arrays then with RAID'. Just a point of
order, RAID *is* redundant array of independant disks.
But RAID is a specific
But RAID is a specific technology. Having multiple, redundant drives
does not require using RAID. My understanding is that Google doesn't use
RAID technology for anything but that one project (Adwords). While for
their search indices and Gmail and the like they simply store multiple
copies
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what does company with database access needs and 25 users do to keep as
much up time as possible?
Depends on the budget, etc. And what the requirements are.
A hardware RAID controller has many problems - you have to make
I think that was what he was referring to ... that redundant arrays
appear to be a very large mirrored RAID (Redundant Array of Independent
Disks) ... as someone noted RAIS ... so for our purposes realistically
there is no real disadvantage in using RAID when the alternative is to
wait for and
It was down for not quite 3 hours and AFAIK, no one lost any data.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM, db [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of which Amazon's redundant array crashed temporarily for 8 hrs
recently didn't it?
Yes, I guess that is the point. You run less risk of losing your backup
data stored with a reliable online vendor than you do if you depend on
your own RAID/ Drobo device.
db
mike wrote:
It was down for not quite 3 hours and AFAIK, no one lost any data.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM,
Yes, I guess that is the point. You run less risk of losing your
backup data stored with a reliable online vendor than you do if you depend
on
your own RAID/ Drobo device.
If your budget can swing it, you should have the following for complete
protection:
1. Shadow copies
2. Disk-disk backup
I would keep it simple, and not use RAID. Most people don't understand
it; especially where the risks of data loss are. At the low end, the
risks of data loss are high for those who do not know a LOT about RAID.
Personally, assuming this is important data, I like serial SCSI, SAS.
SAS disk
For simpler needs, 1.5 TB capacity disk drives are available. Might
make a nice middle layer between fast-access and archive/backup.
Good point. For many organizations archives are a ready reference and
accessed frequently. For others archives are mothballed projects that
are rarely accessed.
And don't forget that you need both onsite and offsite archives/backups.
Terrible things happen rarely, but they are far less terrible if your
have good offsite storage.
*
** List info, subscription management, list
But as long as you are looking to add retrieval speed and continue the
tape bkup you referred to, and considering that hardware is relatively
cheap these days, a server with a SATA RAID controller card...
I avoid both tape and RAID. I consider them significantly less reliable
than a modern
I stay away from RAID for personal or small business uses. Tape, as
long as the person doing the backups practices restoring from them, are
still a nice way to get data backup off-site. (Backup is one thing;
recovery is Everything!)
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
I avoid
I'm wondering how RAID can be less realiable then a 'modern' hard drive when
those same modern hard drives are used for the RAID?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I avoid both tape and RAID. I consider them significantly less reliable
than a modern hard
Type and how it is set up.
There are multiple types of raid, and they can easily be messed up by
maladministration. (loose nut behind the wheel.)
Stewart
At 12:08 PM 8/15/2008, you wrote:
I'm wondering how RAID can be less realiable then a 'modern' hard drive when
those same modern hard
Not speaking for Tom, but RAID controllers can fault and the result can
be loss of some or all data. If more than one drive fails while another
is rebuilding, all data for that RAID set is lost. Power loss for RAID
can be a much bigger problem than for independent disk drives. There
are others,
That can be said for anything. Put a nut behind the wheel of just about
anything and it's less realiable.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Type and how it is set up.
There are multiple types of raid, and they can easily be messed up by
Yes but the logic behind the statement isn't that RAID can have problems but
that all RAID is less realiable then just single HD's. Which is ridiculous.
Mike
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Snyder, Mark (IT CIV) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not speaking for Tom, but RAID controllers can fault
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes but the logic behind the statement isn't that RAID can have problems
but
that all RAID is less realiable then just single HD's. Which is
ridiculous.
No, the logic is that relying on a single hard drive is, for most
So this being true...why do companies rely on RAID for keeping data safe?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM, John DeCarlo [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes but the logic behind the statement isn't that RAID can have problems
but
Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John DeCarlo
Sent: 08/15/2008 3:18 PM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] DVD's vs. External hard drives for archiving
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So this being true...why do companies rely on RAID for keeping data safe?
Multiple reasons. Inertia is one of them. For instance, Maximum PC has
advocated RAID with super-fast disks for gaming performance. Then they did
a
Gaming performance is different then trying to protect data..completely.
Multiple reasons. Inertia is one of them. For instance, Maximum PC has
advocated RAID with super-fast disks for gaming performance. Then they did
a benchmark test within the last year or two and found that RAID didn't
There are more failure points in a RAID array, and more catastrophic failure
conditions. A RAID card is more likely to fail than a single hard drive
(well, shorter MTBF). It is always the case that the more components you
have in a system, the higher the chance of any one of them failing.
Multiple reasons. Inertia is one of them...
Inertia is a big one. Many IT pros don't keep up with technology or
don't understand the reasons for using a particular technology. They pick
RAID because it is buzzword compliant. Many still use tape for the same
reason. Or HP printers.
So what does company with database access needs and 25 users do to keep as
much up time as possible?
The blog seems to be splitting hairs, instead of hardware RAID on one
machine, google seems to be employing hardware RAID across multiple
machines. Just because they aren't using specifically
Inertia is a big one. Many IT pros don't keep up with technology or
don't understand the reasons for using a particular technology. They
pick RAID because it is buzzword compliant.
We pros use it because of buzzwords like mature and reliable and
inexpensive. We use it for well documented
How much data currently do you archive? How much are you increasing over X
amount of time? How often do you have to access archived data as opposed to
current data, or do you access it as opposed to just store it?
Mike
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 8:16 AM, David Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
We're
Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:59 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] DVD's vs. External hard drives for archiving
How much data currently do you archive? How much are you increasing over X
amount of time
: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:59 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] DVD's vs. External hard drives for archiving
How much data currently do you archive? How much are you increasing over X
amount
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Fred Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, backups and archives are different. Archives are accessible.
Backups are stored where they are completely protected by an air gap or
better -- at least one set should be. Why not just add another network
drive or
About 2-3 years ago, I worked on a proposal for Gov't Printing Office.
Even by then, organizations with large storage needs learned to
distinguish between on-line with quick access (very fast SAN/RAID with
10-15K RPM Enterprise disks) and online storage that was still mostly
enterprise quality,
I agree... the fast online data backup/ access is expensive and the
slow online storage reasonable and for now the twain shan't meet.
But as long as you are looking to add retrieval speed and continue the
tape bkup you referred to, and considering that hardware is relatively
cheap these
This is what I was thinking...an inexpensive RAID solution. Or if you have
a little more cash, Drobo. www.drobo.com
Drobo is a RAID box that handles all the pesky RAID stuff for you, allowing
you to put any size hard drives in the box. Most RAIDS need same size HD's
across the board. So if
Everyone likes the drobo roboticized virtual RAID concept but it is
expensive by the time you have bought the drives... and if you read the
reviews:
http://review.zdnet.com/external-hard-drives/drobo-second-generation-2tb/4505-3190_16-33142477.html
35 matches
Mail list logo
