Maybe I'm too lazy to do backups - I do them monthly and sometimes more frequently (up to weekly). It is still a pain to have to reinstall everything, and if the OS was also in the RAID that would save the trouble of doing that, whereas backups mostly don't (AFAIK? Or are you like "cloning" the hard drives somehow? If so I'd like to know). I use Microsoft's SyncToy (free download to genuine Windows users) to Synchronize or more usually Echo my important folders to an external drive, the software that came with mine is inferior to SyncToy IMO.
Ivo.
So tell me more about RAID 1
Re: So tell me more about RAID 1
I wasn't calling you lazy Ivo. Just in my opinion it seems a bit redundant to do RAID for backup purposes.
Besides if your OS would fail due to software or virus, then you would still have to re-install/wipe the drives. RAID (especially RAID 1) only saves you from hardware failure. If Windows goes self destruct (or gets a virus) you're going to have two drives that are dud since any changes to data are done in parallel on both drives. Then follow the same recovery procedure as you would with one drive.
You would still need some sort of external backup to save you from that problem. Therefore, in my opinion RAID 1 seems a little pointless unless you are doing RAID 0/RAID5 for speed.
It just depends on the pros/cons. If you want the speed cheaply but don't care about hardware failure, then RAID 0 is definitely the way to go. If you want a bit of insurance against hardware failure but don't mind the expense, RAID 5 is the way to go, however even RAID 5 (striped, distributed/interleave parity) can be completely ruined (as mentioned previously in this thread) by a hardware controller failure. Which again, if you are going for speed, a dedicated hardware controller is the only way to go. Software just doesn't compare.
Besides if your OS would fail due to software or virus, then you would still have to re-install/wipe the drives. RAID (especially RAID 1) only saves you from hardware failure. If Windows goes self destruct (or gets a virus) you're going to have two drives that are dud since any changes to data are done in parallel on both drives. Then follow the same recovery procedure as you would with one drive.
You would still need some sort of external backup to save you from that problem. Therefore, in my opinion RAID 1 seems a little pointless unless you are doing RAID 0/RAID5 for speed.
It just depends on the pros/cons. If you want the speed cheaply but don't care about hardware failure, then RAID 0 is definitely the way to go. If you want a bit of insurance against hardware failure but don't mind the expense, RAID 5 is the way to go, however even RAID 5 (striped, distributed/interleave parity) can be completely ruined (as mentioned previously in this thread) by a hardware controller failure. Which again, if you are going for speed, a dedicated hardware controller is the only way to go. Software just doesn't compare.
Marurun wrote:Don’t mind-shart your pants, guys