On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Carl G Lewis wrote:
> On Thursday 13 February 2003 16:54, David wrote: > > yes.. but what about reliability? is there a difference? I need two new > > drives, but I much prefer reliability to size (I'm told that size isn't > > everything ;-) > > Moral of the story: > ASSUME ALL DRIVES ARE CRAP. > > This is OK, because Linux gives us fantabulous software RAID. If you care > about data integrity, get two drives, do mirroring, and the chance of data > loss is very, very small. Better yet, get 3, so that you have one on hand > when one dies. You should still do backups, of course. Personally I use RH, > the installer makes setting up RAID pretty easy, other distros are probably > not that hard either. RAID costs more, but I reckon the peace of mind is > worth it. I went to the trouble of installing a hardware RAID card (anyone want to buy it?). When the data on one drive was corrupted by a drive fault, the other drive dutifully mirrored it so I had TWO corrupted sets of data. The moral of this story is: backup with RAID is better than RAID without backup.. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
