kakomu wrote: RAID is not a backup. The only reason to use RAID 1 is to maintain uptime. Otherwise, it adds complication, especially if you\'re using hardware RAID.
+1
A RAID unit should be considered as a single unit. A file on the raid unit is going to be a single copy of the file because corruptions and deletions get transmitted to the other stripes / mirrors.
A simple and very cost effective plan is to use bare drives. I have the internal \"drive\" and an internal bay with a door where I lodge a bare drive. This means that the drive gets cooled by the system.
I back the internal \"drive\" on to the bare drive regularly. Every so often (about once a month) I visit my safe deposit box at the bank and swap the drive there. If a new file is very important I can copy it to a \"cloudy\" location for up to a month.
That way every file exists in three copies and one of them is off-site. If a catastrophe strikes and I only have the off-site copy, I\'ve lost two week\'s work (on \'average\', a month max), but I would have much bigger fish to fry than worrying about a month\'s work.
I put \"drive\" in quotes because it is three drives: a 55 GB OS partition (simulates a 60 GB drive, with no pagefile and no hibernation file) on a 200 GB drive, a 500 GB data drive, and a 1000 GB (1 TB) photo drive. The bare drive is 1.5 TB and thus backs everything up.
As capacities increase, you migrate everything to bigger drives.
Feb 20, 2012 at 02:37 PM
Previous versions of Monito's message #10363054 « How long will RAW files be readable? »
