To RAID or not?

[Richard Spandit]

My laptop has crashed and although I've got some stuff backed up, I've lost quite a lot. To stop the same happening to my Linux desktop (which is less likely, since you don't often drop desktops ) I have ordered another 160Gb HDD, thinking I would set up a RAID array (my BIOS supports it but I've only ever had one SATA hard drive running)

However, is it worth setting up an automatic mirrored disk? Thought I might plug in my older IDE drive as a local backup point, but a mirrored disk of the main disk (I'm losing myself here...) would make system recovery easier, assuming hardware failure of the first disk. Is this a good idea, or should I just install it as a second drive and run regular backups of different files?

Any recommended backup solutions for Linux (SuSE 10.3)?

[Spitoon]

Depends what you're trying to avoid. A mirrored RAID will largely protect you from a HDD failure but not agin a virus attack or something else that legitimately, in the eyes of your BIOS, says 'format C:'. External backup gives you more security but more work doing regular copying.

The paranoid amongst us may have a mirrored RAID in the machine and make a regular external copy of those important files.

Can't tell you anything about Linux I'm afraid.

[Saab Dastard]

RAID provides resilience, not data security.

The main benefit of RAID is in terms of uptime and availability, but it is no substitute for regular and appropriate backups.

Yes, a Raid 1 mirror will make recovery from a failed disk easier, but this is just one of multiple possible failure modes.

SD

[Richard Spandit]

Thanks, SD. I think I'll run a RAID array, as well as installing another hard disk for regular backups, before burning DVDs.

Managed to reclaim a lot of my stuff off the Macbook and copying it to the Desktop now...

[exeng]

3 hard disks

After learning the hard way a few times over the years by losing data I now have 3 hard disks in my main desktop plus 3 in another. (I dual boot on one by the way with XP and Vista, mainly just to occasionally remind myself how awful Vista is!)

I use synctoy to regularly back up my important files to the other hard disks on this desktop.

Every 2 months or so I back them up to an external hard disk and then transfer them to the 3 hard disks on the other desktop.

Any really important new files are immediately transferred by flashdrive or network to the other computer.

There are probably huge flaws in my methods but for the last few years it seems to have worked despite complete system crashes.

Internal drives really are quite inexpensive these days; and I have tended to have a number of reasonable sized drives left over from upgrades - they might not be as fast as the newer ones but they still hold data reliably.


Regards
Exeng

[E.Z. Flyer]

How do you plan, or, in fact, do you partition the Hard Drives?


OS, Programs, Data, Scratch Disk...

[exeng]

E.Z. Flyer

If your question was refering to my post then here is an answer - if not then I apologise.

I just format each hard drive and leave it as one partition. You could of course give each drive several partitions and end up with several more 'apparent' drives.

The reason for totally independent drives (3 in each computer) is to prevent a single drive failure corrupting the data in separate partitions.

One drive has the XP OS on it, another has Vista; the third has data only and no OS.

I would imagine that some sort of motherboard fault could cause corruption of data on all independent drives - hence the duplication on another entirely separate desktop computer - plus the storage on an external drive.

Might seem a bit over the top, but when you have had a spot of finger trouble as I have had in the past it is nice to know that everything is sitting switched off in four other locations.


Regards
Exeng

[E.Z. Flyer]

Exeng

Is the Vista 64 bit? Or more so to my own question, that, with the two OS systems it would seem the plan in action is to migrate. Because, I'm reading now that 32 bit applications in the not so distant future will be replaced by the 64 bit platform and memory will require 4 gb.

So, the XP is 32 bit, and has the patch so that data is 64 bit compatible, regardless.

It seems you are almost to the limits again even with RAID in place, because of the transitions and the intro of the Server 08 platform.

Sounds like a good problem!

Regards,

EZ

[Mac the Knife]

rsync is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync

http://everythinglinux.org/rsync/



use cwrsync for Windows - http://www.itefix.no/phpws/index.php...position=23:23

[exeng]

E.Z. Flyer

The Vista is 64 bit. No raid on this system because as mentioned before in my case it was data security I was after.

I will occasionally look at Vista on the system and see whether updates improve its performance. As you allude to I suspect that I will have to improve on the hardware I currently use before Vista becomes efficient. (This system is based on a 2.20 gig AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core + 2 gig of ram)


Regards
Exeng

[Mac the Knife]

"....improve on the hardware I currently use before Vista becomes efficient......This system is based on a 2.20 gig AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core + 2 gig of ram"

Kinda awful to have an OS that isn't "efficient" on those specs......

Linux/BSD/Solaris would fly!!!

ho hum....

[decemberflower]

Richard, Linux has builtin backup utilities such as tar and cpio. You don't need RAID to backup your main hard drive, you can use a second internal hd or a usb external one and set up your crontab to copy the entire disk via cpio nightly or so. That is the method used at some major data centers. Personally I just back up the data to flash drives and external hd myself. I have been using Linux for over a decade and had a major hard drive crash only once.

[exeng]

Mac de knife

Kinda awful to have an OS that isn't "efficient" on those specs......

Quite correct which is why I went back to XP but left the system as dual boot. I found Vista was like trudging through treacle.

I've been intending to try a linux OS but have been put off with fears of wireless network issues. I'm quite a wimp really!!


Regards
Exeng

[idgas]

Have a look at "Mirror Folder"

A software solution that works well for me.

Cheers,

[Mac the Knife]

I can vouch for MirrorFolder. Really excellent.

Not free though.

[Wader2]

I use an external LAN hard drive in the vague hope that a thief would not nick a hard drive rather than the computer.

As I still don't have a completely warm fuzzy feeing I am considering a second LAN drive

[decemberflower]

Exeng: You need to pick the right wlan interface (read: right chipset that is suppoted by the Linux kernel) in order to get the WLAN to work. Som manufacturers are quite sloppy with their drivers and don'twant to share th code cause of FCC issues. But it's doable. What's more, you ca set up a Windows virtual machine and launch it under Xen or Qemu (latest Fedora Coer 8 ha builtin virtual machine software with both Xen and Qemu options), you can get it to set up your existing real Windows partition as a VM and run the WLAN through that. I have no tried that myelf but why no give it a try. I made USB WLAN work under Linux after 2 days of painful hacking, and it was not quite stable (connection died every few hours and needed a reboot...) only to find out it was not the right chipset.

If you are interested, I can dig up the lists of working WLAN brands/chipsets an PM it to you as time permits.

[bnt]

For Linux, I found Unison works pretty well, as long as you configure it correctly.

[Richard Spandit]

I wanted to use Unison to sync between my Macbook (now resurrected) and my Linux box, but the versions need to be the same and I couldn't find binaries that matched - can't be bothered with compiling it from source on both machines