> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:18:50 -0800, "Don Schmidt" <Don
> Engineer[ at ]PNB.Retired_1987> wrote:
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I think you misunderstood my comments.
>
>
> Well, maybe, but I don't think so.
>
>
>> I didn't say the RAID ARRAY was a way of backing up,
>
>
> No, you didn't say it directly, but to the great majority of home
> users with RAID 1 (again, note that it's important to specify which
> version of RAID you're talking about; RAID 0, for example, is
> completely different), they think of it as a substitute for backup.
> The purpose of my message was not to argue with you, but to point out
> to others reading it here that it should *not* be thought of a
> substitute for backup.
>
>
>> it's a way of ensuring no loss of data do to hard drive
>> failure.
>
>
> Well, maybe. But if, for example, the cause of the drive failure is a
> power surge caused by a nearby lightning strike, it could very easily
> fry both drives in the array simultaneously.
>
>
>> Also provides a quick and easy method of restoring a failed drive.
>
>
> True. But since having an image or clone backup provides the same
> thing, I see no real value in RAID 1 for the great majority of home
> users.
>
>
>> Also, I don't rely on the dual hard drives as a backup, I backup to an
>> alternate storage facility; network hard drive off location.
>
>
> Great! Glad to hear it! But once again, the great majority of home
> users with RAID 1 do rely on it as backup. The reason I posted what I
> did was to dissuade anyone who has that point of view or might be
> persuaded to take that point of view.
>
>
>> Loss of my data do to power outage or spikes is next to impossible, at
>> least
>> improbable for I have an APC RS-1500 UPS.
>
>
> Again, very good and glad to hear it. I recommend that everyone do
> that sort of thing. But note that although that will protect you
> against most normal power spikes, it won't protect you against the
> enormous spike that a nearby lightning strike can cause.
>
> And again, I didn't mean to make my point only to you, but to everyone
> reading the thread; not everyone will have a UPS.
>
>
>> It also provides me with a 30
>> minute working window if the AC is lost.
>>
>> And yes, my files warrant extreme safeguard measures.
>>
>> I do fail in my protection plan if subjected to nuclear attack. If that
>> happens, I guess I'll have to start over from scratch. Damn, that's
>> going
>> to be tough.
>>
>> Take care,
>
>
>
> Did you read the article at the link I posted (down below)? I think
> it's very interesting.
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:amuoi4tfptnhh7dmjv1ilvtp2p6ingkn6n[ at ]4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:20:07 -0800, "Don Schmidt" <Don
>> > Engineer[ at ]PNB.Retired_1987> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You need to know some things about the hardware in your computer:
>> >> Do you know if the computer was configured with RAID ARRAY? Two
>> >> duplicate
>> >> hard drives with drive/s C (and D etc) on both drives.
>> >
>> >
>> > There are several different types of RAID. What you describe is not
>> > RAID in general, but simply one of those several different types. It's
>> > RAID 1, also called mirroring.
>> >
>> >
>> >> RAID Array is the way my ASUS motherboard is setup, two hard drives
>> >> with
>> >> C &
>> >> D on both. What happens on one drive happens on the second drive. It
>> >> is
>> >> a
>> >> guarantee to prevent loss of data.
>> >
>> >
>> > It is no such guarantee at all. The purpose of RAID1 is redundancy.
>> > It's used in situations where it's critical that the system stay up,
>> > and any down time costs them a lot of money. So RAID1 achieves that by
>> > keeping the system running if a drive fails without having any down
>> > time.
>> >
>> > Since home users hardly ever need that kind of redundancy, RAID1 is
>> > almost always wrong for them. The reason that RAID1 should not be
>> > considered a backup technique to protect your data is that it leaves
>> > you vulnerable to all kinds of potential losses of your data: for
>> > example, severe power problems, electrical storms, virus attacks, even
>> > theft of the computer. Companies that use RAID1 almost invariably
>> > *also* have a backup procedure in place. Almost all home users don't
>> > need both and should have backup in place, not RAID1. And the backup
>> > should be stored on *external* media, kept separate from the computer.
>> > You can read more about why any version of RAID is inappropriate for
>> > most home users at this web site:
>> >
http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup