[CentOS] OT: Replacing Venerable NAS
m.roth at 5-cent.us
m.roth at 5-cent.usWed Nov 18 21:58:33 UTC 2015
- Previous message: [CentOS] OT: Replacing Venerable NAS
- Next message: [CentOS] OT: Replacing Venerable NAS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:01 PM, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: >> >> On 11/18/2015 11:55 AM, Warren Young wrote: >>> It’s rather annoying to buy a NAS, then later realize you need to >>> buy*another* NAS as a mirror in case the first one roaches itself. >>> Isn’t that what redundant storage is supposed to avoid? >> >> no, RAID is purely availability when faced with single or double drive >> failure, nothing else. classic raid is most certainly NOT about data >> integrity, as the raid stripes aren't checksummed, they assume hardware >> data integrity. > > I knew I’d get some kind of lecture like that. > > Look, I know RAID/ZFS is not a backup. My point is simply that if you > need to keep a mirror of your file server just in case it roaches itself, > what you have there is dual redundancy, not a backup. You need an offline > backup *on top* of that, for the same reason that all hot mirrors are not > backups. <smip> Which is why, for home, I went to MicroCenter and bought, for about $30 USD, a hot swap drive bay that fits in my mid-sized tower, and a 2TB drive. Doesn't even need a sled.... mark
- Previous message: [CentOS] OT: Replacing Venerable NAS
- Next message: [CentOS] OT: Replacing Venerable NAS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list