On Feb 23, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Apptech wrote:

> He argues that RAID typically reduces reliability.
> ie done well it can be an improvement, but ... .

For Raid0 (striping), he's clearly right.  Double
the potential for failure.

For Raid1 (mirroring), I'm less sure.  He seems to be comparing  
"real" raid experience with "ideal" backup plans, and I'm not sure  
about his claim that a disk failure in a raid1 "means a long  
frustrating hassle."  (It's not supposed to, is it?  Swap out the bad  
drive, add in the new drive, let the mirror re-build?)  And I suspect  
we're all aware of just how difficult it is to maintain that 'ideal  
backup plan.'

And then there's the disclaimer of "servers are different."  When  
does my desktop become a server, anyway?  Our household has at least  
five computers, of which three are moderately "serious", and I tend  
to back them up each to another one.  Does that make them all  
servers?  I'm starting to think about a new desktop for myself, and  
was thinking of a raid 5 array (it's looking less likely; I was  
hoping for a software raid5, and it doesn't look like that's actually  
supported.  Sigh.)

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist