>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>148435 >only 5 and 6 (and on top of those) allow for drive failures Well that's just not true. RAID0: N disks, Sum(N) capacity. One drive goes, you're fucked. RAID1: N disks, Sum(N/2) capacity. One drive goes, no problem, because that drive's backed up on its mirror drive in the array. RAID3: N disks, N-1 capacity. One drive goes, no problem, because there's a checksum to let you recreate the dead drive. RAID4: Same as RAID3 for our purposes RAID5: Same as RAID3, but with much better performance because the parity drive isn't a bottleneck RAID6: Like RAID5 but can handle two volumes dying.
Basically, the only one where you're fucked if a drive dies is RAID0.
>I dont have data on either, but ive never heard of a tape failing, people have HDD failures all the time. HDs fail all the time because they're generally in constant use. If they're just sitting there, it's terribly unlikely for something to fail. No more than with a tape. And an average HD will take a hell of a lot more read/write cycles than an average tape.
Like you said, your backup plan is good for really long term backups. If you're needing to keep backups for a government requirement that every single bit must be stored forever, go with tapes and plenty of 'em. If you want to be protected if one of your hard drives dies, backup on hard drives.
Using a hard drive for backup is certainly not "doing it wrong" is my point. Your assertion that external hard drives are "never the answer" is just flat out wrong.
|