nitroshift Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Just a quickie: got a RAID stripe and 1 of the 2 hdd's died. If I plug in a new hdd, will I lose any data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uid0 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Stripe? You've already lost it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitroshift Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 ****!!! And it was the OS partition... More hours to put the server back in working order. No more stripe this time though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Servers should always be running with either a system backup, or even better, RAID1 or higher. If your system goes down because of the drive, then you want to get it up and running ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitroshift Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) For some reason it's still running, but when I want to Ghost the OS partition it gives me an error: "Read sector failure, result = 1, drive = 0, sectors 16864623 to 16864687". Also I'm getting a new hdd today. The setup is as follows: 2 drives in RAID, 2 partitions, the OS partition in stripe, the data partition in mirror. When I remove the old failing drive and plug in the new drive, how should I proceed to setup the RAID again?EDIT: managed to copy the partition using Acronis TrueImage. Phew! Edited November 16, 2006 by nitroshift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 well you would want raid0 for a server... use raid1 or even better, raid5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 well you would want raid0 for a server... use raid1 or even better, raid5What? No you would not want just RAID0 for a server. RAID 10 maybe (mirroring+striping) if you're worried about performance, but you never want to run a server without redundancy. Doing so is just asking for trouble...RAID5 is fine if you don't worry about the time taken to rebuild the array if a drive dies. If you've got a RAID card with a dedicated XOR processor, then it's not too bad, but otherwise, it can take hours to rebuild the array. RAID1 or RAID10 are much faster to rebuild, and hence, you'll have much less downtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 lol, talking about a mistype by me! you would not want!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I personally through experience would never use Raid of any type on a OS drive, get yourself a fast SATA drive and ghost to another. Along with regular backups and updating the ghost when changes in the OS occur is by far the fastest way to recover from drive failure. Raid sucks..!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcarle Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Raid sucks..!!!!!It's a multi-billion dollar industry, hundreds of millions of servers rely on it everyday, but it sucks. Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Raid sucks..!!!!!It's a multi-billion dollar industry, hundreds of millions of servers rely on it everyday, but it sucks. Good one.well he's talking about home usage i think, and i agree if thats what he's saying. as for companies, raid is a must have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcarle Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 well he's talking about home usage i think, and i agree if thats what he's saying. as for companies, raid is a must have.RAID is not necessarily always appropriate for home usage sure but I'm sorry, the technology does not "suck". Most people don't even know that it stands for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks, which in itself, is the great thing about RAID. It allows you to have real-time backups using commonly available technology at a low cost. RAID 0 was designed for performance and isn't a true RAID.I have 2 x 250GB in RAID 1 on my computer which contains all my data. Ghosting a 250GB hard drive is simply not realistic. Any other approach other then RAID is simply too costly or inadequate to use to backup 250GB of data. 250GB represents 54 DVD-Rs, which is also unrealistic. Tape Backup is too expensive. The ONLY solution to have that much data on your computer and be able to effectively backup that data is through the use of RAID. And at the prices of today's hard drives and the availability of RAID on most motherboards today, as well as having extremely affordable RAID controllers available as PCI cards, what reason is there to NOT use RAID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I personally through experience would never use Raid of any type on a OS drive, get yourself a fast SATA drive and ghost to another. Along with regular backups and updating the ghost when changes in the OS occur is by far the fastest way to recover from drive failure. Raid sucks..!!!!!Or... you can just replace the dead drive in your RAID1 array and tell the system to rebuild... probably takes about the same time (if not less - no compression to deal with) as restoring an image.RAID is the only thing I trust with my files. I've got my 5 years of university on my RAID1 array at home, and on my remote webhosting. The only thing that could knock out my data now is an EMP to hit the entire west coast of North America.Edit - And all of what jcarle said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uid0 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 The only thing that could knock out my data now is an EMP to hit the entire west coast of North America.DVDRs should be fine with EMP, then your studies could help rebuild a post-apocalptic world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 But DVD-Rs only last a few years. The risk of the data layer undergoing chemical change, or peeling... no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now