I only ever used RAID once.

The server had dual CPU's (Not Dual Core - Redundant), dual PSU's, Mirrored
RAM, RAID Drives, etc. etc.
After 6 Months its only failure was the only non redundant part - The
RAID Controller board, and the OEM had non in stock.

I removed it, configured the server with normal Drives and it ran for 10
years without a fault, it was only turned off because the network was
migrated to a server cluster and it became redundant.

I have never trusted RAID since.

On 21 February 2012 06:22, Harold Hallikainen <harold@hallikainen.org>wrote=
:

>
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2012, at 7:04 PM, James Newton wrote:
> >
> >> find me a genius M$ SBS 2k8 server herder and pay him or her to help
> >> correct the "punctured strip"
> >
> > I've read some reviews of RAID that claim it's not worth the trouble.
> > In theory, it keeps things from breaking.  In reality, it adds more
> things
> > that can break, and it breaks in incomprehensible and hard-to-fix ways.
> > For data that changes relatively slowly, a backup disk maintained by
> > software might work better.
> >
> > BillW
>
> Since the hard drive is not the only thing that can fail, I like redundan=
t
> servers. I just rsync stuff over every night.
>
> Harold
>
>
> --
> FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
> opportunities available!
> Not sent from an iPhone.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.