Le lundi 27 Mars 2006 22:30, Johnny Johnson a écrit :
> But, you might want to consider the tradeoffs between RAID 0
> for speed and RAID 1 for reliability. (Of course though, even with
> RAID 1, you'd still need to backup the files so maybe RAID 1 isn't a
> big plus in a home computing environment.)
RAID is just marketing hype unless you deal with insane amount of data, in the
TB magnitude of order, spanning more than 8 disks. That is because as far as
PC are concerned, RAID has no dedicated external hardware, therefore the
motherboard is still a single point of failure in the array. If the controler
goes berzerk (I've seen it once, and it's not pretty... M*A*S*H style data
recovery), you lose both master and copy disk. RAID does only deal with HDD
failures, *not* computer failures, and they happen much more often than
expected. I'd personnaly join both disks in a single volume (like LVM in
linux) and backup my datas somewhere else. Of course, the more disks you
have, the more likely a failure of a single unit is to happen. That's why at
8 disks, RAID is fine because you're playing in another part of the
statistical curve (1 failure in 8 units vs 1 in 2).
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|