"Guy" <bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
>> I've been working on a RAID setup with dual RAID controllers and
>> three expansion boxes - 48 disks in all, including data, parity and
>> global spares.
[...]
>> They don't feel that the storage has to be blazing fast, and 100% uptime
>> isn't paramount, however they very much do not want to lose their data.
>>
>> The filesystem will not be backed up - we simply don't have anything large
>> enough to back it up -to-, so if the some part of the storage solution
>> goes kerflooey, we're totally... er... out of luck, and they'll probably
>> be looking at me (the primary sysadmin on the storage configuration),
>> wondering why their data is gone.
>
> RAID5, 6 or 1 is not data backup! It is hardware redundancy!!
> Data loss or corruption can still occur with a RAID solution. RAID won't
> help if someone fat fingers a "rm" command.
> Corruption of the filesystem can also cause major data loss, without a
> failed disk.
>
> If the data was lost, what would it cost to re-create it?
> Enough to buy a backup system?
I absolutely agree with this. When - and it is when, not if - the
content of this filesystem goes away, you will be rightly blamed for it.
Invest the few thousand dollars in a good high capacity tape drive and
pay someone to change the tapes. This will be worth it when the system
finally does fail in some nasty, unpredictable way!
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
