| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 18:42 +0100, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Marton Gabor <gabor.marton@××××××××××.hu> said: |
| 5 |
> > Now I have the idea to use RAID5 and ... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> in a recent discussion about raid on this list, somebody posted a link |
| 8 |
> to BAARF - the Battle Agaist Any Raid Five |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/ |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> which i found to be an interesting read. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
I don't get it :-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Having RAID doesn't magically make backups unneccessary. Even with a |
| 17 |
RAID1 of RAID1 of RAID5 you risk losing all your data with a rm -rf in |
| 18 |
the wrong place. And there's nothing more beautiful then a faulty |
| 19 |
controller frying all your disks at once :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Apart from that raid5 is often the locally best solution for solving |
| 22 |
storage problems, so if you don't want to use it, fine, just don't try |
| 23 |
to tell me to put another three disks in my server (which I can't even |
| 24 |
do without buying a new larger enclosure). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Patrick |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives