| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:31 AM Laurence Perkins <lperkins@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> If it's just that the SSD is failing, then get a new one before |
| 4 |
> something important gets damaged and you have to redo the whole thing. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
IMO any kind of storage device should be treated as if it could fail |
| 7 |
at any time without warning. You should have a plan for what you will |
| 8 |
do WHEN this happens, not IF it happens. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If losing a storage device would result in you losing "something |
| 11 |
important" then you're doing it wrong. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I keep all my spinning disks in some kind of RAID unless their |
| 14 |
contents are completely expendable (ie I won't be upset if I |
| 15 |
completely lose it). For SSDs I generally do frequent rsync or |
| 16 |
zfs-send backups to a spinning disk - these are generally used for OS |
| 17 |
data which doesn't change as much anyway, and the backups are quick |
| 18 |
since they aren't large. If I had large SSDs I'd run them in some |
| 19 |
sort of RAID. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And of course anything I consider really important gets backed up to |
| 22 |
the cloud, encrypted. RAID is more about avoiding downtime and the |
| 23 |
inconvenience of an offline restore. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives