Prev: External Storage for Laptop
Next: sata hard drive ide adapter support query
From: Bob Willard on 23 Feb 2010 16:34
bigby wrote:
> Bob Willard wrote:
>> bigby wrote:
>> Backups will also work if you decide to replace the HDs in your
>> RAIDset, to increase capacity or speed; or if you decide to
>> upgrade the MB or CPU or RAM or OS or ...
>>
>> RAID is not a replacement for backup. Period.
>
> RAID is a replacement for RAID!
>
> I have never asked a backup. You read wrong.
>
> I already have a backup for data but that takes lots of time for
> restoring if the OS is gone. So I also wanted the RAID.
>
> Do you know a type of backup that will reinstall all installed
> applications?

If you restore from an image-mode backup of the set of all of
the HDs it should result in all apps being correctly installed.
You may need to do a repair/install of Windows, but all of the
info created during the installation of apps was part of the
image-mode backup; mostly in the registry, which is just a
couple of files. An installed app is, in fact a set of files
and a set of links to those files; those links are stored in
either the registry (files) or in .INI (or equivalent) files.

RAID1 gives you some protection against the failure of a
single HD. It gives you *no* protection against the failure
of any other component in a computer, and many of those
components are more failure-prone than HDs. Furthermore,
RAID1 gives you no protection against transient faults, which
are not failures, but which may cause file corruption; RAID1
gives you no protection against environmental problems (e.g.,
brownouts and lightning strikes) which may cause file
corruption; RAID1 gives you no protection against malware or
badly-designed software which may cause file corruption; and
RAID1 gives you no protection against the most common cause
of lost or corrupted files: fumble-fingers.

Again, RAID1 only gives you some protection against failures
of the most reliable components in a computer. Nice to have,
if you have already covered all of the less reliable stuff.
--
Cheers, Bob
From: bigby on 25 Feb 2010 11:45
Bob Willard wrote:
> If you restore from an image-mode backup of the set of all of
> the HDs it should result in all apps being correctly installed.
> You may need to do a repair/install of Windows, but all of the
> info created during the installation of apps was part of the
> image-mode backup; mostly in the registry, which is just a
> couple of files. An installed app is, in fact a set of files
> and a set of links to those files; those links are stored in
> either the registry (files) or in .INI (or equivalent) files.

Thanks for the info but the hassle of restoring from backups after the
last image was taken is just not worth it. OR the bandwidth needed for
daily backups of the whole HD or partition is just not worth it. That's
why I want RAID1...

> RAID1 gives you some protection against the failure of a
> single HD. It gives you *no* protection against the failure
> of any other component in a computer, and many of those
> components are more failure-prone than HDs. Furthermore,
> RAID1 gives you no protection against transient faults, which
> are not failures, but which may cause file corruption; RAID1
> gives you no protection against environmental problems (e.g.,
> brownouts and lightning strikes) which may cause file
> corruption; RAID1 gives you no protection against malware or
> badly-designed software which may cause file corruption; and
> RAID1 gives you no protection against the most common cause
> of lost or corrupted files: fumble-fingers.

Lots of people on this NG giving lessons on what RAID is, which I know
perfectly...

> Again, RAID1 only gives you some protection against failures
> of the most reliable components in a computer. Nice to have,

THE MOST RELIABLE COMPONENTS IN A COMPUTER???
C'mon

It's clearly the least reliable one. (Maybe the mainboard could have
similar un-reliabilty).
And it's where important stuff is.
From: David Brown on 25 Feb 2010 14:46
bigby wrote:
> Bob Willard wrote:
>> If you restore from an image-mode backup of the set of all of
>> the HDs it should result in all apps being correctly installed.
>> You may need to do a repair/install of Windows, but all of the
>> info created during the installation of apps was part of the
>> image-mode backup; mostly in the registry, which is just a
>> couple of files. An installed app is, in fact a set of files
>> and a set of links to those files; those links are stored in
>> either the registry (files) or in .INI (or equivalent) files.
>
> Thanks for the info but the hassle of restoring from backups after the
> last image was taken is just not worth it. OR the bandwidth needed for
> daily backups of the whole HD or partition is just not worth it. That's
> why I want RAID1...
>
>> RAID1 gives you some protection against the failure of a
>> single HD. It gives you *no* protection against the failure
>> of any other component in a computer, and many of those
>> components are more failure-prone than HDs. Furthermore,
>> RAID1 gives you no protection against transient faults, which
>> are not failures, but which may cause file corruption; RAID1
>> gives you no protection against environmental problems (e.g.,
>> brownouts and lightning strikes) which may cause file
>> corruption; RAID1 gives you no protection against malware or
>> badly-designed software which may cause file corruption; and
>> RAID1 gives you no protection against the most common cause
>> of lost or corrupted files: fumble-fingers.
>
> Lots of people on this NG giving lessons on what RAID is, which I know
> perfectly...
>

People (including me) here are trying to guess what your problem really
is, and give you advice on solving or avoiding that problem, rather than
directly answering the question you asked. Sometimes that's a useful
thing, sometimes not - it depends on whether or not you asked the right
question at the start!

>> Again, RAID1 only gives you some protection against failures
>> of the most reliable components in a computer. Nice to have,
>
> THE MOST RELIABLE COMPONENTS IN A COMPUTER???
> C'mon
>
> It's clearly the least reliable one. (Maybe the mainboard could have
> similar un-reliabilty).
> And it's where important stuff is.

I've seen a fair number of computers over the years - perhaps a couple
of hundred. I can only think of one occasion when I saw a true hard
disk failure in a computer that wasn't a worn-out dinosaur or badly
abused in some way, and that failed within a week of use. In my
experience, power supplies and fans are the weak points in typical
computer hardware. I've also seen a few motherboards die.

Far and away the least reliable part of a computer (excluding the
user...) is the software, especially on a windows system. It is /so/
much more likely for a system to fail as a result of software (OS
failures, malware, applications screwing the system, crashes leading to
file system corruption, botched "updates" from MS, false-positives from
anti-virus software, etc.) than from hard disk failure that raid is a
waste of effort until you have adequately protected yourself against
realistic failures.

Anyway, since we agree that the motherboard is a risky component, and
that "fakeraid" is effectively tied to the motherboard, you know that
fakeraid is not the answer. If you insist on raid, either buy a
hardware raid card or use your OS's software raid (I have never tried it
on Windows - Linux software raid is a solid option).

Incidentally, since you have knowledge of Linux but not Windows, and are
setting up a server, why are you considering Windows at all? Why not
use Linux with mdadm raid? (And good backup, of course - Linux may be
orders of magnitude better than Windows at keeping your data reliably,
but it's still not perfect.)
From: bigby on 27 Feb 2010 11:53
David Brown wrote:
> I've seen a fair number of computers over the years - perhaps a couple
> of hundred. I can only think of one occasion when I saw a true hard
> disk failure in a computer that wasn't a worn-out dinosaur or badly
> abused in some way, and that failed within a week of use.

Not my experience. I saw 2 disks fail within the last month. Another in
december, another in november.

> In my
> experience, power supplies and fans

Fans don't bring down the computer immediately. Use Nanoxia or Noctua
for silence & 10 years life.
Power supplies failing, seen only once in my life.

....

> Incidentally, since you have knowledge of Linux but not Windows, and are
> setting up a server, why are you considering Windows at all? Why not
> use Linux with mdadm raid? (And good backup, of course - Linux may be
> orders of magnitude better than Windows at keeping your data reliably,
> but it's still not perfect.)

Right... problem is some apps are windows-specific and also I am not the
final user for this computer.

I am thinking of virtualization windows inside linux (w/ linux software
RAID), I know KVM but I am not proficient in passing an USB port to the
windows guest for the printer yet (linux drivers for the printer are
problematic) especially I don't know what will happen if disconnected
then reconnected or if computer reboots. Also we have win 2000 pro
licenses which don't support remote desktop, and vnc is not extremely
friendly.

Thank you
From: David Brown on 27 Feb 2010 19:01
bigby wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> I've seen a fair number of computers over the years - perhaps a couple
>> of hundred. I can only think of one occasion when I saw a true hard
>> disk failure in a computer that wasn't a worn-out dinosaur or badly
>> abused in some way, and that failed within a week of use.
>
> Not my experience. I saw 2 disks fail within the last month. Another in
> december, another in november.
>
>> In my experience, power supplies and fans
>
> Fans don't bring down the computer immediately. Use Nanoxia or Noctua
> for silence & 10 years life.
> Power supplies failing, seen only once in my life.
>

Experiences vary, and we all tend to worry most about things we have
seen going wrong ourselves.

> ...
>
>> Incidentally, since you have knowledge of Linux but not Windows, and
>> are setting up a server, why are you considering Windows at all? Why
>> not use Linux with mdadm raid? (And good backup, of course - Linux
>> may be orders of magnitude better than Windows at keeping your data
>> reliably, but it's still not perfect.)
>
> Right... problem is some apps are windows-specific and also I am not the
> final user for this computer.
>

Fair enough.

> I am thinking of virtualization windows inside linux (w/ linux software
> RAID), I know KVM but I am not proficient in passing an USB port to the
> windows guest for the printer yet (linux drivers for the printer are
> problematic) especially I don't know what will happen if disconnected
> then reconnected or if computer reboots. Also we have win 2000 pro
> licenses which don't support remote desktop, and vnc is not extremely
> friendly.
>
> Thank you

I have no real experience with KVM either - I have used Virtual Box on
desktops, and OpenVZ on servers (but that's only for Linux guests on a
Linux host).

As for vnc, I find it friendly enough - I have used it for years for
working with Windows machines over networks (and occasionally Linux
machines, but generally I can do what I need there with ssh). I
recommend TightVNC with the Mirage drivers - I gather version 2 of
TightVNC has a fair number of useful new features.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: External Storage for Laptop
Next: sata hard drive ide adapter support query