controversy
RAID is not a replacement for backup. It is a complement to a good backup
system. Many will tell you that Tape Backup is slow, antiquated, and no
to be trusted. I would not begin to argue these issues either way. I
would say this: If you will NOT be using a Tape Backup (or CD, or
Keith Antoine wrote:
I have the local Chemist who is asking me to build 2 fileservers, not a big
deal but!
They have a tape backup system that has never been used (8gig) so its a biton
the old side. In fact I do not think they would know how if the server went
down or even if it is
Rather then a new MB it might be better to look into an IDE raid
controller card or raid by software.
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-3.html#ss3.1
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Hardware-HOWTO/ideraid.html
On Friday 24 May 2002 06:30, Keith Antoine wrote:
I have the local Chemist
IDE RAID is *garbage*. If you're going to use hardware RAID, use SCSI,
or don't bother.
SOftware RAID is even significantly better in both performance
reliability than IDE RAID.
Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
Rather then a new MB it might be better to look into an IDE raid
controller card or
On Friday 24 May 2002 17:38, Net Llama! wrote:
Keith Antoine wrote:
I have the local Chemist who is asking me to build 2 fileservers, not a
big deal but!
They have a tape backup system that has never been used (8gig) so its a
biton the old side. In fact I do not think they would know
On Friday 24 May 2002 13:35, Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
Rather then a new MB it might be better to look into an IDE raid
controller card or raid by software.
I am actually quoting him on 2 totally new server builds. The motherboard will
have a promise (I think) controller built in.
Gigabyte
On Friday 24 May 2002 18:43, Net Llama! wrote:
IDE RAID is *garbage*. If you're going to use hardware RAID, use SCSI,
or don't bother.
SOftware RAID is even significantly better in both performance
reliability than IDE RAID.
So you say to go with software raid, if so i'll change the
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Keith Antoine wrote:
On Friday 24 May 2002 17:38, Net Llama! wrote:
Keith Antoine wrote:
I have the local Chemist who is asking me to build 2 fileservers, not a
big deal but!
They have a tape backup system that has never been used (8gig) so its a
biton the
On Friday 24 May 2002 08:43, Net Llama! wrote:
IDE RAID is *garbage*. If you're going to use hardware RAID, use
SCSI, or don't bother.
Not true.
IDE drives are reliable and fast enough now that most SMB will be
very happy with their performance.
--
Ronnie Gauthier
==
Each
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
On Friday 24 May 2002 08:43, Net Llama! wrote:
IDE RAID is *garbage*. If you're going to use hardware RAID, use
SCSI, or don't bother.
Not true.
IDE drives are reliable and fast enough now that most SMB will be
very happy with their
SCSI still has a higher MTBF than IDE by a significant margin. Regardless
of the size of a business, they don't like hardware failure.
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
True. But as I stated, most SMB(Small/Medium Business) never put that
much demand on a system. SCSI is overkill
That is one of the best medium priced MB's there is. You do pay for
the onboard sound and NIC but the IDE is great, 4 IDE devices for
raid OR 8 independant IDE devices. It is good for a SMB and really
great for home/hobby use because of its 33/66/100/133 support. And
yes, it is a promise
On Friday 24 May 2002 23:27, Net Llama! wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Keith Antoine wrote:
On Friday 24 May 2002 18:43, Net Llama! wrote:
IDE RAID is *garbage*. If you're going to use hardware RAID, use SCSI,
or don't bother.
SOftware RAID is even significantly better in both
Skippy
2k has a built in backup from Backup Exc, now it is not the best around,
but it is useable and free. Now if you can get them to use a Linux box with
drive space, amanda is supposed to read any thing and back it up.
Other than that most backups are 200 to depending on what
14 matches
Mail list logo
