840
priorities (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by no_nothing@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Longpork3@lemmy.nz 7 points 4 months ago

Raid 0 offers no redundancy though. If any of those three disks fail, you lose the entire volume.

For the sake of backups, switching to Raid 5 would be more robust

[-] 30p87@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago

If it fails, I will just throw in a new SSD and redo the backup. I sometimes delete everything and redo it anyway, for various reasons. In any case, I usually have all copies of all files on the original drive, as local backup on the device and backup on the workstation. And even if those three should fail - which I will immediately know, due to monitoring the systemd job - I still have daily backups on two different, global hosters as well as the seperate NAS. The only case in which all full backups would be affected would be a global destruction of all electronics due to solar storms or a general destruction of earth, in which case that's the least of my problems. And in case the house burns down, and I only have the daily backups, potentially losing 24 hours of data, that's also the least of my problems. Yes, generally using Raid 5 for backups is better, but in my case I have multiple copies of the same data at all times, surpassing the 321 rule (by far - 622, and soon 623). As all of my devices are connected via Gigabit, getting backups from eg. the workstation after the PC (with backups) died is just as fast as getting backups from the local PC backup Raid itself. And using Raid 0 is better (in speeds) than just slapping them together in series.

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
840 points (99.0% liked)

Memes

45729 readers
751 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS