| 1 |
On 26/06/2013 00:24, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Use soft raid, its performance is at least as good (there was a report |
| 3 |
>> > saying it was usually better, even against some lower end dedicated raid |
| 4 |
>> > cards which were resource constrained), and its portable. |
| 5 |
>> > |
| 6 |
>> > Thats not to say "dont use the box" - the disk interfaces are usually |
| 7 |
>> > very good performers in standard mode so just dont use the raid mode. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't really need RAID, but want to safeguard my SSD installed OS, ideally |
| 10 |
> automatically so. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Why? With an i7 and SSD you can recreate it from scratch in 90 minutes |
| 13 |
and all you need is to mirror /etc/portage somewhere |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What you want to protect is your *data* and that you will probably have |
| 16 |
on the spinning disk |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Perhaps it would be beneficial to define exactly what you want to |
| 19 |
accomplish. This of course is hard to do, most folk stop at "copy this |
| 20 |
stuff here to over there" and never think it through |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
do you want a regular raid-style mirror so that you can survive loss of |
| 23 |
one disk? |
| 24 |
do you want regular copies of $STUFF in case you have a blonde moment |
| 25 |
and delete something? |
| 26 |
Do you want restore snapshots in the style of Apple TimeMachine or |
| 27 |
Windows's restore points? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
These are mutually exclusive hence why you must define what you want to |
| 30 |
achieve |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives