2
My Motherboard has 4 internal SATA ports. I am considering a linux software raid.
I plan to use this for backing up my work movies, music etc
Do I need to spend the money on RAID Level drives? Or am I safe with standard hard drives?
a 2TB Hitatchi 7200 is like $89 at NewEgg where a Samsung F1 RAID 1tb is $150.00
Thoughts?
3
RAID stands for Redundant Array of INEXPENSIVE Disks. Go for the cheap ones.
Nerdfest
Posted 2010-02-21T04:16:18.033
Reputation: 808
2it did, in 1987. it's current "official" meaning is Redundant Array of Independent Disks. (presumed a marketing move to dissociate "low cost" from the technology.) – quack quixote – 2010-02-21T04:44:58.400
2
I second Nerdfest's answer, go for the cheap ones.
A friendly reminder, RAID is not a backup. RAID does not protect your data against many causes of data loss including a RAID controller failure, simultaneous drive failures (especially if you buy all your drives at the same time), software or virus corruption as well as many other user errors.
If you want to keep your data safe use RAID WITH a backup strategy.
Dave
Posted 2010-02-21T04:16:18.033
Reputation: 64
as this is not an answer to the question, it is best left as a comment. (i know you don't quite have the rep to leave comments, but when you do...) – quack quixote – 2010-02-21T20:44:37.230
The poster's question was which drives they should purchase, which I answered with "go for the cheap ones". – Dave – 2010-02-22T00:45:14.417
1
To answer your question - It depends on what you are doing with the box. Is it going to be a backup server and not your main workstation? If so and you plan on having it on all of the time, I would spend the extra money and get the RAID drives. RAID drives are spec'd for 24/7 continuous use where consumer drives are not.
If you are putting this into your existing workstation and plan to keep a copy of your data on a RAID volume, I would recommend against this as RAID by itself is not a backup. If you plan on using RAID for the performance and availability benefits and don't use the workstation 24/7 then regular consumer drives should be fine. I would recommend buying some online backup space or getting a few external hard drives to back files up to if this is your situation.
MDMarra
Posted 2010-02-21T04:16:18.033
Reputation: 19 580
@MarkM - Nothing to do with the usage of the box. It has to do with the DATA on it and the budget of the user. Music and Movies are not financial data or life insurance. The user is obviously looking to save money here or they wouldn't ask. Go with the cheaper ones. – Moshe – 2010-02-21T22:51:59.363
@Moshe - It's irresponsible to assume something like that. If the OP was only looking to save money, he would have bought the cheap drives without asking. In a backup box that is running 24/7 the RAID drives would be preferable. In a workstation that is idle/sleeping for a large portion of the day then consumer drives would be preferable. It is the OP's decision, I simply provides accurate information based on the facts given. That hardly deserves a downvote. – MDMarra – 2010-02-21T22:58:56.710
My apologies, will remove vote if you edit. "Value to old to be changed." – Moshe – 2010-02-22T01:56:23.047
it's worth repeating: RAID is not a backup. – quack quixote – 2010-02-21T20:44:58.383
1@~quack - RAID 1 is a backup and a backup only. – Moshe – 2010-02-21T21:32:58.350
3@Moshe: RAID1 is redundant , not a backup. there's a difference. RAID1 doesn't just mirror a drive for redundancy either; it boosts read performance (at the expense of write performance). – quack quixote – 2010-02-21T21:36:15.940
1@Moshe - Very wrong. If you accidentally delete something or corrupt it, it is deleted/corrupted on both mirrors and is gone. Raid 1 is strictly for AVAILABILITY! – MDMarra – 2010-02-21T21:37:32.647
1@MarkM - Ok there, that's quite enough flaming for one question... Seriously, i had no idea. My mistake.
@Quack - Makes sense now that you explained it. I thought RAID 0 was the only one that didn't do backup... – Moshe – 2010-02-21T22:49:28.947
@Moshe - Sorry if you took it as flaming, it's a cardinal sin in IT to call RAID a backup. I was simply making sure that the OP was not lulled into a false sense of data security. Especially since you made it sound the opposite. – MDMarra – 2010-02-21T22:56:03.940
1@MarkM - Well considering the downvote at the same time as your flurry of comments,how should I take it? Well thank you for the lesson in IT, I really mean that. I learn how little I know every day. Thanks. ;) – Moshe – 2010-02-22T01:58:01.173
1@Moshe - I'm sorry if you took the downvote as "flaming" or offensive. A downvote is for information that is inaccurate or incorrect. It's not a reflection on you, just your answer. Specifically the line that says "RAID 1 is more expensive but provides an actual backup of your data." – MDMarra – 2010-02-22T02:45:47.397
1@MarkM - actually, I discussed this with a friend today. In RAID 1, if one of your drives fail, you do have a backup. – Moshe – 2010-02-22T22:09:08.023
@Moshe - No, you have a redundant copy of the data. A backup can be restored if something is accidentally deleted, the whole computer is destroyed from a fire/flood/whatever, the data is corrupted, compromised or damaged in any other way. With RAID one, if any of these things happens, it happens to both drives at the same time. If you have no real backups, you cannot restore a file that was accidently deleted, or otherwise damaged, since it is replicated to both drives. RAID 1 provides a mirror for redundancy in the event of a drive failure -- this is not considered a backup. – MDMarra – 2010-02-22T22:37:01.687
@MarkM - A drive failure is the most common data loss, no? Floods and fires aren't daily occurrences and cannot even be said to happen consistently every 5-10 years. Drive failure's happen much more often. I was not counting on natural disasters, but in those cases you are correct, a RAID 1 would probably be useless. Still, I wouldn't say it's not a backup. By definition a backup is an identical copy of data on a second drive. That RAID 1 is. Where you store that backup or how safely you store it is not relevant to that fact. Perhaps an unreliable backup, but a backup nonetheless. – Moshe – 2010-02-23T03:09:17.190
1@Moshe - Floods and fires are not daily occurrences, but I constantly have to restore backups for users (from tape) for files that were accidentally deleted or corrupted or otherwise screwed up to the point of needing to be rolled back. No one worth their salt in IT would call RAID a backup. This isn't my opinion, ask any system administrator responsible for backups. RAID never was intended as a backup and it never will be. It is for availability and performance. If it is an "unreliable" backup, than it isn't a backup at all. – MDMarra – 2010-02-23T04:45:39.540
@Moshe - don't take my word for this. Here is some reading you may want to do. http://serverfault.com/questions/2888/why-is-raid-not-a-backup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_is_not_data_backup http://www.singlehop.com/blog/2009/07/13/raid-vs-backup/ http://www.ilovebonnie.net/2009/01/02/why-raid-is-not-backup/ http://administratosphere.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/raid-is-not-a-backup/
– MDMarra – 2010-02-23T04:51:30.900