On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:25 +0100, David Greaves wrote: > Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > Im not treating it as a backup, what i want, is to make sure that if 1 > > disk dies, the data is still intact and ill hopefully be able to run > > with 1 disk till the newly ordered one arrives > Probably one of the main design objectives behind RAID/md Exactly, but once people start saying: "Look how many problems people post to the thread on a weekly basis where people lose their data when md rebuilds go bad with non-shared disks" i begin to worry.. > > > So my question remains.. Is md raid1 not suited for this need? would it > > be safer to run in non-raid1 mode and daily(maybe hourly) rsync > > everything over to the second disk? > > md is 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back... > rsync is 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back... > your backups are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back... > your hard drives are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back... > your CPU and RAM are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back... > your CPU and PSU fans are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back... > > Clearly if you want to panic over reliability you have lots of choices :) I do not wish to panic, i merely wished to know if linux MD is believed to work in most cases, or believed to do all sorts of weird stuff when resyncing :) > > David > PS, FWIW md has saved my data* countless times over the past 'n' years in > exactly the scenario you describe. It has also been useful to people i know, i just wished to be sure :) and as Keld Jørn Simonsen and Helge Hafting's comments seems to confirm, linux md IS nice and stable :) and as said, what im looking for isnt an in-box backup solution, merely safety in case one disk burns :) > > *(or more accurately has saved me from having to restore my data) -- 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
