On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:29 -0700, Marcel Duchamp wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 7:01 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 21:57 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
> >> Didn't end up liking that (stability issues), so we bought a real
> >> hardware RAID card. Has worked flawlessly and effortless ever
> >> since. Note this wasn't just mirroring RAID, nothing special.
> >
> > That should read: "Note this WAS just mirroring RAID", sorry about
> > that!
> >
> > TTYL
> >
>=20
> Does that imply that if the hardware RAID card dies and can't be=20
> replaced, you can still access the data?  It sounds like it since it is=20
> "just" a mirror RAID setup but I'm a clue-less newby here...

This exposes a MAJOR misconception of RAID: having a RAID array is NOT a
replacement for backups.=20

RAID arrays are there so that you can "keep going" if you have a certain
level of hardware failure. If one of the drives in my array fails I
loose read performance, but the array keeps going, and my data is still
accessible.

You STILL need to back up everything through more "normal" means, RAID
doesn't change this one bit.

So, to answer your question, if the hardware RAID card dies, get your
data from your backup.

In my case, since I'm using mirroring both drives would still have the
data, so I'd be fine (assuming the death of the card wasn't accompanied
but the death of the drives, very possible if your machine is hit by a
nasty power surge). If OTOH you were using striping or RAID 5 things are
alot messier, I don't know how "standard" the physically mapping of
sectors is, I'm relatively sure replacing the card with an identical
type will result in a viable array, other card, I'm less sure. I've
never really cared, because THAT'S WHAT BACKUPS ARE FOR.

TTYL

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.