Set Me UP!!!

[YeOldeStonecat]

Originally Posted by rustynails87

The RAID server should be a good enough backup as it is correct?

What happens if someone just "deletes" a file....intentionally, or "oops!"
Or say a file gets corrupted..and you have to go back a day or two or three....?

To look for your file storage for home...I suppose it depends on your budget, you could certainly go through tons of money creating massive RAID arrays with RAID 1 for the OS and RAID 5 or RAID 10 for the data..have SSDs....and a screaming system.

BUT...you running some massive heavy databases or something? For just file storage...sharing of files....I'd seriously want to spend my money someplace else..and just do a large RAID volume for this file server for your home network.

For a home file server...I'd get some business/enterprise grade spindle drives designed to be run 24x7 in DVRs...drives such as a Seagate Pipeline....low heat output, low power consumption, very quiet, 3 or 5 year warranty. Setup a nice RAID 1 with an Adaptec or Areca RAID controller card....in a low power consumption quiet dual core Atom or i3 based system.

Due to your need for higher capacity than what more drives come available in size wise...RAID 5 should be fine for you. Pickup 3x 2tb drives and you'll have just short of 4 gigs of storage presented to you.

What OS will you be using to store/host your data? Something like FreeNAS? Does its own RAID too....pretty decent software RAID. So you can save money on RAID controllers.

[lcoughey]

Originally Posted by rustynails87

The RAID server should be a good enough backup as it is correct?

I mean if a drive fails on the OS or on the storage raid i can just pop in another hdd and it will rebuild the raid...

This is the very reason that I asked. RAIDs fail every day and are a backup alternative. I expect to see a huge influx of NAS units this year for data recovery for this very reason. People are going to be shocked when they get quote $5000-10,000 for data recovery because they chose not to invest a few hundred dollars into a good backup solution for their RAID.

It is no secret that drives form bad sectors. The larger the drive, the higher the odds. With a RAID, they only report a drive bad if they encounter a read or write error to a drive. So, if the bad sectors form in areas that are not being used, the drive will not be reported bad. But, when you do get a drive reported bad and replace it, the other drive(s) with bad sectors will also drop from the array before the rebuild completes when the rebuild tries to calculate parity from the bad sector. Now your RAID is offline, and your data is not accessible without doing data recovery. Any further attempt to rebuild the array will likely cause unrecoverable data loss.

So, RAID is great for minimizing down time, but if your files are not stored in at least 2 different locations (not in two different partitions), you do not have a backup.

As for the cloud, I highly doubt that you will have enough bandwidth and money to use the cloud to backup the volume of data that is typically stored on a RAID.

Anyway, yes, I went off the original topic...but only because I am trying to do you and everyone else a favour by giving an advance warning.

[rustynails87]

Well I think want to run a raid 1 setup.
but should i just keep it just the 2 disks or should i boot off a single drive then do a raid 1 for the backup files (3 discs)?

I am also going to be running windows 7

[compnet]

Do you want the OS and programs backed up or just data you put on the raid?

[RedFoxComp]

Originally Posted by rustynails87

Well I think want to run a raid 1 setup.
but should i just keep it just the 2 disks or should i boot off a single drive then do a raid 1 for the backup files (3 discs)?

I am also going to be running windows 7

Why do you want RAID 1? Is it a server?

Typically you only use RAID 1 if you can't afford any downtime, not as backup. If uptime isn't a concern there is little reason for it, just set up regular backups.

*edit* oops, missed that this was the server subforum For a very low use server you can partition and keep OS and Data on one array. Otherwise you'll want 2.

[rustynails87]

I want the server to be up 24x7 and ideally i would want to backup the OS and the files in the share....

what would be my best raid configuration(s)?

[14049752]

Originally Posted by RedFoxComp

Typically you only use RAID 1 if you can't afford any downtime, not as backup.

I have to disagree. Raid 1 is a pretty good way to complement your backups...there's never a time when having a second layer of redundancy/backup is a bad thing.

[colonydata]

Originally Posted by rustynails87

I want the server to be up 24x7 and ideally i would want to backup the OS and the files in the share....

what would be my best raid configuration(s)?

the configuration i have seen the most is you have 2 small fast disks in Raid one that you install the OS on, and then a Raid 5 array for your data.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Pair of large disks RAID 1 will be fine for a home server...hold both the OS and data. Since you're running a desktop operating system, and I'll guess desktop grade hardware...that'll get the job done.

For some better performance...4x drives...first pair, smaller, don't have to be fast, RAID 1 for the OS, second larger pair, faster disks, RAID 1 for the data storage (you'd move your libraries there).

[rustynails87]

So just do 2 sets of raid 1 is what you are saying.

why not raid 1 for OS then raid 5 for data