Backup strategy is to backup to tape once a week and back up another raided hard drive external of the main machine every night(swapped once a week ie 2 boxes and 1 taken offsite every week, which is for the same reasons as you said, even though raid is brilliant and pretty full proof all it takes is a fire, or hardware fault to wipe it out, as was said before if the raid card was replaced by another which can not detect the raid in full all I would then need to do is rebuild the server and replace the data to the place it was before.
Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Pascoe Sent: 27 September 2007 21:21 To: British Ubuntu Talk Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Software verses Hardware raid (wasRE:Anyone evertried kolab on feisty) Hi Alan / Daniel An interesting topic and one that has recently been done to death on the Beowulf mailling lists under the "Big Storage" title (sorry, haven't sused out their archive system yet). Now these guys are looking at HPC and HA computing going up from 4 to 1000+nodes with PB size storage levels. The conclusion they came up with was that for 99.9% of scenarios hardware RAID beat software RAID hands down - this was not hearsay but through experience. I'm interested in why Daniel chose RAID in a single box as that to my mind gives you an instant single point of failure - I'm always glad to be proved wrong! What will be your backup strategy or are you going to be totally reliant on RAID for that? E -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Pope Sent: 27 September 2007 16:06 To: British Ubuntu Talk Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Software verses Hardware raid (was RE:Anyone evertried kolab on feisty) Hi Daniel, On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 15:58 +0100, Daniel Lamb wrote: > Personally I feel raids only real use is data protection, as hard drives are > sometimes very unreliable anyway how is really worried about speed? This is > in a server which means its not reading or writing at a very fast speed > anyway. Your server might not, but many do. A friend of mine runs a server and IO is the single biggest bottleneck on the box. He has 4 physical disks with the data mirrored _and_ striped over them. So he has performance and resilience. Of course if the server is only an office server with some documents and email then it's less of an issue perhaps. It's all about the usage. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
