View Single Post
Old 05-24-2015, 10:40 AM   #47
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I honestly don't think that RAID is any "safer" than a normal disk. A few years ago I had a RAID 5 Buffalo NAS. The RAID controller failed and fried 3 of the four disks in the RAID array, meaning that had I not had (which obviously I did have!) a backup, I would have lost my data.
The presumption is that rotating media is more likely to fail than the solid state electronics. Which may be statistically true but no comfort to those getting the short end of the MTBF curve.

(Or a lightning strike, for that matter.)

RAID is really intended for heavy workloads where the mechanical components are the biggest risk factor.

For data backup purposes (i.e., low duty cycles) a better use of funds is multiple standalone drives scattered at off-site locations.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote