formatting link
- posted
11 years ago
Disk based backups for computers.
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
have you read it?
They think RAID is reliable, like a number of posters here. 8-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
RAID6 is reliable unless you build a system and allow it to mature until all drives are about to fail from old age simultaneously. This was operator error - remains to be seen how good their offline backups were. They were just out of luck to lose three drives so quickly.
(But rebuilding RAID arrays is a high stress on the drives)
formatting link
RAID0 configurations are less reliable but faster (any single point failure takes it down). Worth it only for scratch data.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
fqq$3lk$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net...
Yes, it was nothing to do with disc based back-ups.
It was about users' primary data such as their websites being lost. The data that was lost is being restored.
Shit happened. They had a back up. Shit cleared up. End of.
(ICBW but I don't think it mentioned what media the backs were stored on, BTW).
You were just trying to score a cheap point.
MBQ
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
WHO thinks RAID is reliable?
Raid isn't about reliability, its about availability.
It allows you to pass through the failure of a single disk with no loss of availability.
I t cant cope with te loss of the single disk CONTROLLER or the simultaneous loss of multiple disks.
My RAID base hosted virtual server is backed up nightly to my home machine here.
But then I know a little about computers - unlike some.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I have, it has nothing to do with disk based backup.
RAID introduces a level of fault tolerance and improves availability. It is not a substitute for backup, and does not guarantee reliability.
As as a storey the article seems to cover a non event... Live storage went down due to hardware failure, they replaced it and are in the process of restoring from backup. Hardly news.
In fact it actually reflects quite well on the company concerned. Since they are flogging virtual server hosting at only £40/year. It would be rather unrealistic for customers to expect a complete live failover or similar levels of protection. The fact that they are providing backup recovery at all, or going to effort to restore customer's sites rather than just telling them to re-upload them seems, like a decent level of service.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Its about reliability if its used for backup. Backup systems don't need to have high availability but they do need to be reliable.
It can cope with thee failure of a disk controller, if you equip it to do so. They can also cope with the loss of more than one disk if they are equipped to do so.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
ql0$pem$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net...
Who was using RAID for backup? Not the outfit you referred to.
MBQ