4 ms·

RAID is for speed and avaliability. It's not backup. I personally use home grade 2x 4TB SSD RAID 1 for my media and server grade 2x 1TB SSD RAID 1 for my docum

RAID is for speed and avaliability. It's not backup. I personally use home grade 2x 4TB SSD RAID 1 for my media and server grade 2x 1TB SSD RAID 1 for my documents. The reason I use RAID 1 is because if one drive fails I should be able to use the other drive while I order a replacement. I don't expect them to be my backup.

willis936 6y ago
Tomatoe tomato. RAID uses redundant (ie backup) drives for availability.
- seized 6y ago
  Very wrong. Entire RAID arrays can be lost to fire, water/flooding, power surges, multiple drive failures, theft, etc. And if the controller dies you may be up the creek. Backup is separate. Ideally following 3-2-1. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/
  - willis936 6y ago
    Again, this is semantics. Redundancy is backup. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to keep data in one physical box in one physical location. I also never implied that. Please follow HN guidelines paragraph 3.
    - seized 6y ago
      Redundancy is not backup based on industry standard terms. Redundancy protects against some hardware failures but not accidental deletes, filesystem corruption, malware, or a whole host of other things. Even filesystems with snapshots can be lost and snapshots are the only time you can start blurring the lines between redundancy and backups in terms of protecting against data loss via deletes etc. And they are still not proper backups as you can still have a hardware failure significant enough to wipe out all your data. A backup is a separate copy of data, either on separate hardware or off-site or a other combinations. Based on best practices and standard terminology. No one uses "redundancy" to refer to separate copies of data especially when discussing RAID in contexts like this discussion. So the only interpretation of your comment is the weak one that I responded to.

willis936 6y ago

Tomatoe tomato. RAID uses redundant (ie backup) drives for availability.

seized 6y ago
Very wrong. Entire RAID arrays can be lost to fire, water/flooding, power surges, multiple drive failures, theft, etc. And if the controller dies you may be up the creek. Backup is separate. Ideally following 3-2-1. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/
- willis936 6y ago
  Again, this is semantics. Redundancy is backup. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to keep data in one physical box in one physical location. I also never implied that. Please follow HN guidelines paragraph 3.
  - seized 6y ago
    Redundancy is not backup based on industry standard terms. Redundancy protects against some hardware failures but not accidental deletes, filesystem corruption, malware, or a whole host of other things. Even filesystems with snapshots can be lost and snapshots are the only time you can start blurring the lines between redundancy and backups in terms of protecting against data loss via deletes etc. And they are still not proper backups as you can still have a hardware failure significant enough to wipe out all your data. A backup is a separate copy of data, either on separate hardware or off-site or a other combinations. Based on best practices and standard terminology. No one uses "redundancy" to refer to separate copies of data especially when discussing RAID in contexts like this discussion. So the only interpretation of your comment is the weak one that I responded to.