hat
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Messages
- 21,731 (3.43/day)
- Location
- Ohio
System Name | Starlifter :: Dragonfly |
---|---|
Processor | i7 2600k 4.4GHz :: i5 10400 |
Motherboard | ASUS P8P67 Pro :: ASUS Prime H570-Plus |
Cooling | Cryorig M9 :: Stock |
Memory | 4x4GB DDR3 2133 :: 2x8GB DDR4 2400 |
Video Card(s) | PNY GTX1070 :: Integrated UHD 630 |
Storage | Crucial MX500 1TB, 2x1TB Seagate RAID 0 :: Mushkin Enhanced 60GB SSD, 3x4TB Seagate HDD RAID5 |
Display(s) | Onn 165hz 1080p :: Acer 1080p |
Case | Antec SOHO 1030B :: Old White Full Tower |
Audio Device(s) | Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro - Bose Companion 2 Series III :: None |
Power Supply | FSP Hydro GE 550w :: EVGA Supernova 550 |
Software | Windows 10 Pro - Plex Server on Dragonfly |
Benchmark Scores | >9000 |
Have a read and see if my logic is sound... or point out any flaws...
I'm beginning to gather some data that's important-ish to me and I'd rather not lose it. So, rather than storing it on a single drive, I'd like to employ RAID. RAID5 seems like a good option, but I'm still rolling the dice on running into a URE if I ever have to rebuild the array should a drive fail. RAID1, or RAID10, doesn't have this issue, but all types of RAID do share one issue: a controller fault. Should the controller fail, you're still screwed, regardless of disk health, unless you can find the same controller again. This is data I'm going to keep around indefinitely, so I'm planning on something to fail... else I wouldn't be considering RAID.
So, either way, something will fail and I'll be screwed. I guess this is why they say "RAID is not a backup!". In order to mitigate this, I would hazard a guess that a single external drive matching the size of my array should be an acceptable solution. Of course, this still doesn't work in the "somebody bombed my house" scenario, or in the astronomically unlikely event that both the RAID and the external totally fail at once, but I'm not thinking that extreme. This way, RAID5 should still be acceptable, even if I should run into a URE, as the data will be recoverable elsewhere. The loss of the RAID controller itself also isn't the end of the world.
I'm beginning to gather some data that's important-ish to me and I'd rather not lose it. So, rather than storing it on a single drive, I'd like to employ RAID. RAID5 seems like a good option, but I'm still rolling the dice on running into a URE if I ever have to rebuild the array should a drive fail. RAID1, or RAID10, doesn't have this issue, but all types of RAID do share one issue: a controller fault. Should the controller fail, you're still screwed, regardless of disk health, unless you can find the same controller again. This is data I'm going to keep around indefinitely, so I'm planning on something to fail... else I wouldn't be considering RAID.
So, either way, something will fail and I'll be screwed. I guess this is why they say "RAID is not a backup!". In order to mitigate this, I would hazard a guess that a single external drive matching the size of my array should be an acceptable solution. Of course, this still doesn't work in the "somebody bombed my house" scenario, or in the astronomically unlikely event that both the RAID and the external totally fail at once, but I'm not thinking that extreme. This way, RAID5 should still be acceptable, even if I should run into a URE, as the data will be recoverable elsewhere. The loss of the RAID controller itself also isn't the end of the world.