Verran Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 Not really. RAID is used for speed. Real backup situations only use RAID if they have some huge file that you can't split up onto multiple harddrives. No. RAID is used for redundancy...that's the entire reason it was developed (hence the name). You guys are aware that there's more than one type of RAID, right? RAID-0 is for speed. RAID-1 is for redundancy. RAID-5 is for both. You're both right, and you're both wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewr05 Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 You're both right, and you're both wrong.Pwnt x2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingGhost Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 (edited) You guys are aware that there's more than one type of RAID, right? RAID-0 is for speed. RAID-1 is for redundancy. RAID-5 is for both. You're both right, and you're both wrong. (Regarding RAID-1 and 5) If you corrupt data on a HDD, doesn't it get corrupted on the others? If you delete something from one HDD, doesn't it get deleted from the others? RAID is NOT a backup solution. It's only useful if a HDD corrupts/dies, not if you corrupt/delete something...And the whole point of backups is to prevent against both. Or am I wrong? Edited December 10, 2007 by LivingGhost Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Yes, you would be wrong. It stands for Redundant Array of Independent Drives for a reason. When using RAID 1 or 5, if one drive fails, the others compensate until you replace the drive. No data is lost. RAID 0 is obviously different as there is no redundancy (I wonder why they still call it RAID ) Here, read the Wikipedia entry on RAID for an in-depth look into what exactly RAID is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneShot 926 Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Hear is a Link to a HTPC that i was looking at maybe duplicating with maybe a larger hard drive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingGhost Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Yes, you would be wrong. It stands for Redundant Array of Independent Drives for a reason. When using RAID 1 or 5, if one drive fails, the others compensate until you replace the drive. No data is lost. RAID 0 is obviously different as there is no redundancy (I wonder why they still call it RAID ) Here, read the Wikipedia entry on RAID for an in-depth look into what exactly RAID is. So if data corrupts on one drive, or I were to delete something on one drive in a RAID 1 or 5 array, you are saying that the other hard drives would still have that uncorrupted/undeleted file, and that they wouldn't just be mirrors of the drive with the corrupted file on it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldfett Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 (edited) So if data corrupts on one drive, or I were to delete something on one drive in a RAID 1 or 5 array, you are saying that the other hard drives would still have that uncorrupted/undeleted file, and that they wouldn't just be mirrors of the drive with the corrupted file on it? Your right in that respect, corruption and file deletion would happen on both drives. The biggest value in RAID is if one hard drive goes down the other will retain all the data. But if you really were that worried about keeping your data safe you would have an off-site backup somewhere, because who knows... some natural disaster might hit your area and wipe out our PC and take all that data with it... I think we may have strayed a little of topic though... the case looks tempting though, finally a place to store all my spare hard drives lying around! Edited December 10, 2007 by oldfett Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 You guys are aware that there's more than one type of RAID, right? RAID-0 is for speed. RAID-1 is for redundancy. RAID-5 is for both. You're both right, and you're both wrong. RAID-0 is not a true RAID setup and I was not including it. It's not redundant in any sense of the word and shouldn't be called RAID. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 I don't think anyone wants to say they have AID-0 in their rig though A single RAID array with redundancy shouldn't be the *only* form of data protection in a mission critical system, there should be a fallback to a backup system that is typically updated once a day. Yes, redundancy protects data by allowing disks to complete die, it could set on fire, with smoke coming out, and your data would still be intact on the other drives, and that's why RAID is also used for the daily full/incremental backup. I wouldn't mind a case this big for my main rig, with the addition of a second radiator, I'm pretty much forced to mount it externally, if my case (full tower, 670mm tall) was twice as wide I'd have a lot more options for watercooling set up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 I don't think anyone wants to say they have AID-0 in their rig though Hey, my computer has AIDs! Anyway - the Mozart would be the perfect case for a RAID or AID setup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 RAID is NOT a backup solution. It's only useful if a HDD corrupts/dies You're right. It's not a backup solution. Nor is it meant to be. "Backup" and "Redundant" are two different things, and that's what you're mixing up. RAID is meant to protect you from hardware failure, not user failure. RAID-0 is not a true RAID setup and I was not including it. It's not redundant in any sense of the word and shouldn't be called RAID. If you've decided that you're not willing to call RAID-0 "RAID", I can understand that logic, but you can't very well expect everyone else to know you're making that assumption without voicing it. I mean it's called RAID-0. We're not exactly talking quantum physics here... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 If you've decided that you're not willing to call RAID-0 "RAID", I can understand that logic, but you can't very well expect everyone else to know you're making that assumption without voicing it. I mean it's called RAID-0. We're not exactly talking quantum physics here... I probably should have mentioned it. RAID-0 is not a RAID by definition though (though it's one I might set up on a Mozart case if I had one (yes, that's a veiled attempt to appear on topic (yes, I know this is starting to look like LISP (oh dear God I hate LISP)))). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts