Does anyone here treat RAID 5 as a suitable substitute for a backup solution?

[RichUK]

Yeah i know it's not a back-up solution but i can't be arsed with frequent backups on a home file server.

Anyway... your input.

Thanks.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

No... RAID != backup. Get something like Acronis True Image, and setup backups automatically.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
No... RAID != backup. Get something like Acronis True Image, and setup backups automatically.

I know what a backup solution is, and what a backup solution is not. I currently use Acronis to create monthly images of both the laptops and my main PC. This however, is all held on the server's disks

Therefore, I need to make sure there is hard backup's of the server's disks. I can?t be arsed to image the server disk to any tape or DVD back-up media, so I was basically enquiring about RAID since you can always rebuild the array, and maintain the uptime.

Raid 5, IS a viable solution instead of physical external backups. I was just looking to see if anyone used RAID 5 in such a way. Obviously I?m not running an enterprise network, so I don?t need to adhere to any best practices.

RAID 5 maintains uptime, and can be rebuilt without backups. Incremental/full backups, (tapes etc), are usually used for disaster recovery when using a server.

My laptops and PC can easily be recovered via the Acronis images stored on the server. This is the system I have set in place right now, and if and when i need to carry out any restores on the other hardware, it is simple enough to do.

Miscellaneous data is also stored on the server (music etc, hence the use of a file server)


However, if my server goes down I?m fvcked.

I have an external hard drive with all my important data on, so there?s no major issue.

 

[mechBgon]

since you can always rebuild the array,

If the RAID controller itself goes haywire, or the motherboard that it's attached to (if it's onboard), then that's the end of your array, and quite possibly the end of your ability to rebuild it. Of course, we all know motherboards and cards never fail...

To answer the question, "not me." Good luck!

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

since you can always rebuild the array,

If the RAID controller itself goes haywire, or the motherboard that it's attached to (if it's onboard), then that's the end of your array, and quite possibly the end of your ability to rebuild it. Of course, we all know motherboards and cards never fail...

To answer the question, "not me." Good luck!

If I go ahead with RAID 5, I?ll be implementing a hardware RAID solution, aka a dedicated add-in card.

I could always buy two exact same controller cards, and in the event of a faulty card, I can just simply swap out and replace the controller. Obviously any intermittent errors before hand can be picked up via the diagnostic software, and I can then analyse so forth.

I could just use RAID 1, and go with the onboard RAID (software) for the array management. But IMO this is an almighty waste of disk space and costly too, not to say RAID 5 won?t be costly but RAID 5 has better benefits.

I?m trying to find a solution to work around my laziness, lol

 

[DJediMaster]

To maintain uptime I would do backups from one raid 5 array to another raid 5 array on another server. That however is not a fool proof solution as has been pointed out. I would use some other medium like tape for that.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: DJediMaster
To maintain uptime I would do backups from one raid 5 array to another raid 5 array on another server. That however is not a fool proof solution as has been pointed out. I would use some other medium like tape for that.

Unfortunately I don?t have the money to spend on a duplicate server, or a replication server. If I did, I would probably pay some monkeys to carry out the daily tape backups

Really i should have the effort to backup to external media and be done with it. I?m not always good at maintaining routines though

 

[bob4432]

here is what i do and here are my thoughts and soon to be implemented chagnes - remember i have less that 500GB of data to backup.

home server - 3hdds 1 optical drive. all internal hdds get imaged to the largest hdd in the server.

main rig - all images go to big hdd in server

laptop - images go to big hdd in server

now i know that if the one large hdd in the server dies i won't have any backups, but the chances of losing the backup hdd and any of the other hdds at the exact same time are extremely small.

my next step is to use a 500GB hdd in a 1394 or usb 2 enclosure and then image the big hdd in the server to this external unit. then i will have 2 images of everything and should the time come that i need to leave the home fast (i.e. -fire) all i need is to grab the 1 external hdd.

is this perfect, no but it does do what i need it to do for me. the reason i dn't want to use any type of a raid setup is because of controller issues. the way i have it setup i can get the data off the drives with any regular ide/sata port and not have to worry about it.

all of my hdds have fans on them, they are cared for well and defragged often, but i know it is a mechanicial device and it will fail at some time.

i have the interall hdds in the server setup to automatically back themselves up 1x/weekly and i do the laptop and my rig when i feel like it - usually 1x weekly.

i tried the whole dvd setup and that took too much time and sometimes the dvds would get scratched. this setup works for me and has through more than 1 drive faliure.

the only other thing i need to do is swap out my switch for GbE setup to speed up the backups from the laptop and my rig. (my main drive to a 10k scsi on the same card (~25GB = ~10mins) but to the server via 100Mb/s = 45-60mins...

 

[Talcite]

Originally posted by: bob4432

now i know that if the one large hdd in the server dies i won't have any backups, but the chances of losing the backup hdd and any of the other hdds at the exact same time are extremely small.

not if an asteroid hits your house =P.

But seriously, if you REALLY value your data that much, you should look into some off-site backup. They should be relatively cheap these days, plus you don't need to backup everything you have.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Talcite

Originally posted by: bob4432

now i know that if the one large hdd in the server dies i won't have any backups, but the chances of losing the backup hdd and any of the other hdds at the exact same time are extremely small.

not if an asteroid hits your house =P.

But seriously, if you REALLY value your data that much, you should look into some off-site backup. They should be relatively cheap these days, plus you don't need to backup everything you have.

i know i don't have to backup up everything but for me it is just easier, plus the wife uses the laptop a lot so there are things all over that thing. i have looked at off-site but even if i cut out certain items, i am still a conservative 30+GB easy for what needs to be backed up. that is a lot of data to move. i could always get a safety deposit box and do a 1x monthly setup there with a external drive, but i have no clue if the person next to my box has for some strange reason and a big ass magnet in the box....maybe when blu ray (i know, but the capacity is appealing for this type of stuff) is more affordable that may be an option, just 1 or 2 dvds and you are set. do this 1x/mo into a safety deposit box and that would be a decent setup.

just out of curiosity, do you have any place in particular you use for off-site backups?

 

[Talcite]

actually, I don't use off-site myself. I have paper copies of all my work and I'm a student so cash isn't exactly flowing out of the coffers.

However, I have heard many good things about Carbonite. It's at www.Carbonite.com. If carbonite worked for Linux, I would have considered it, but alas it's only for windows -_-' I can't afford the other companies out there, and well Linux offsite backup is just kind of rare.

 

[Captante]

I've had RAID 0+1 arrays fail on me more then once, so no I do not ever rely solely on them as backup

 

[Dave Richardson]

Perhaps look at different backups.

Do a full backup every couple of months and a differential every day or more realistically weekly. I wouldn't bother with incrementals as they are a pain to restore.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Does anyone here treat RAID 5 as a suitable substitute for a backup solution?

Nobody here does. But this guy said it best... "Yeah i know it's not a back-up solution" :shocked:

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: RichUK
Does anyone here treat RAID 5 as a suitable substitute for a backup solution?

Nobody here does. But this guy said it best... "Yeah i know it's not a back-up solution" :shocked:

I guess you missed the part where the same guy also said, "as a suitable substitute for a backup solution"?

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

How much data are you working with? And what controller are you using? Does it allow you to hide arrays? Depending upon the amount of data you are working with, you could create another array (RAID 1 or RAID 5), and use a program to sync data between the operational array and the backup array. When the array is synchronized, hide the array, so that it can't get affected by virii, etc. Sync the backup array at whatever interval floats your boat.

The reason that RAID isn't a viable backup solution is that it only protects you from hardware failure. And that's why it isn't a "substitute" for a backup solution. You can argue semantics and definitions all day, but if you get a virus or your PSU fails you, and you drop two of those hard drives in RAID 5, you are screwed.

From all of your posts, you are obviously intent upon using the RAID 5 configuration as a backup solution, thus nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. So go ahead and do it (or keep doing it, whichever applies). And I hoppe it works for you.

EDIT: If I was to use a RAID array as a backup solution, I would definitely make it a RAID 6 array.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Does anyone here treat RAID 5 as a suitable substitute for a backup solution?

No.

My data and my clients' data are important. Anything important should be backed up. Folks frequently show up on these Forums asking how to recover their RAID arrays.

The only sure backup is one that's NOT attached to the network and is, preferably, offsite. The cheap-and-lazy-person's way to backup 30GB of data is to build two SATA/USB/Firewire drives in trays or housings, make periodic automatic backups to the backup drive, and swap the drives periodically.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: mechBgon

since you can always rebuild the array,

If the RAID controller itself goes haywire, or the motherboard that it's attached to (if it's onboard), then that's the end of your array, and quite possibly the end of your ability to rebuild it. Of course, we all know motherboards and cards never fail...

To answer the question, "not me." Good luck!

If I go ahead with RAID 5, I?ll be implementing a hardware RAID solution, aka a dedicated add-in card.

I could always buy two exact same controller cards, and in the event of a faulty card, I can just simply swap out and replace the controller. Obviously any intermittent errors before hand can be picked up via the diagnostic software, and I can then analyse so forth.

I could just use RAID 1, and go with the onboard RAID (software) for the array management. But IMO this is an almighty waste of disk space and costly too, not to say RAID 5 won?t be costly but RAID 5 has better benefits.

I?m trying to find a solution to work around my laziness, lol

Instead of going to the extent of buying duplicate cards and still not having an actual backup solution, how about watch for hot deals on high-capacity drives, then put a couple of them in a different PC on your network and schedule your server to back up across the network to those drives?

That wouldn't be very difficult or time-consuming, and it wouldn't require any manual attendance. It might generate a lot of network traffic, and you still have to worry about those darn asteriods, but hey

As RebateMonger implies, there's also a risk when the data is still on the network, because worms and viruses could still get at them, so take that into account too.

 

[Navid]

How is RAID going to help you, as a real backup solution would, if you delete a file by mistake and want it back?

 

[Atheus]

If you do RAID 1, can you access each drive as a single drive? If the card dies can you still access the data?

Originally posted by: Navid
How is RAID going to help you, as a real backup solution would, if you delete a file by mistake and want it back?

Because he said the array holds images of his working volume, not the working volume itself.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Atheus
If you do RAID 1, can you access each drive as a single drive? If the card dies can you still access the data?

Originally posted by: Navid
How is RAID going to help you, as a real backup solution would, if you delete a file by mistake and want it back?

Because he said the array holds images of his working volume, not the working volume itself.

And what if he accidentally deletes one of those images?? That's why RAID != backup.

If you RAID 1, both drives are 1 logical drive. You can't access them seperately. And if your RAID controller fails, no, you cannot access the data without another RAID controller of the same type (same card, firmware version, etc).

 

[RichUK]

Ok, I?m going to try and respond to as many of you as I can.

First off, some basic info on the spec and capacity of my current file server.

My server currently has two separate 250GB SATA disks which are not RAID?ed. So I have a total of 500GB?s that would need to be some what secure.

The first HDD holds the images of my Dell and my Toshiba laptops, as well as my main custom made PC. Each laptop and PC has two images stored on this disk on this server, to make a total of six images. The first image is of a fresh install which is static. The second image is the monthly image taken off of each laptop and the PC which is dynamic.

The second 250GB hard drive (which is the root drive) holds a bunch of miscellaneous data, which is actually nearing the need of an expansion. This server and this specific hard drive actually holds data for one of my house mates too (not backup images).

If I were to go with RAID 5, I would purchase a new controller along with a new set of hard drives.

I suppose what I am trying to do, is survive without a backup solution in place and rely on proven method of data integrity. Ala RAID 5.

I was orginally thinking of 4 identical HDD?s, 3 for RAID and the other for use as a hot spare. With RAID 5 you also have the scalability which is good for future expansion.


?? moving on,

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
How much data are you working with? And what controller are you using? Does it allow you to hide arrays? Depending upon the amount of data you are working with, you could create another array (RAID 1 or RAID 5), and use a program to sync data between the operational array and the backup array. When the array is synchronized, hide the array, so that it can't get affected by virii, etc. Sync the backup array at whatever interval floats your boat.

The reason that RAID isn't a viable backup solution is that it only protects you from hardware failure. And that's why it isn't a "substitute" for a backup solution. You can argue semantics and definitions all day, but if you get a virus or your PSU fails you, and you drop two of those hard drives in RAID 5, you are screwed.

From all of your posts, you are obviously intent upon using the RAID 5 configuration as a backup solution, thus nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. So go ahead and do it (or keep doing it, whichever applies). And I hoppe it works for you.

EDIT: If I was to use a RAID array as a backup solution, I would definitely make it a RAID 6 array.

RAID 6, I think, is going a bit too far with my actual needs. As you know, due to the way the parity works in a RAID 5 implementation, if two disks go down you lose the whole array. This however can easily be prevented via proper management of the diagnostic software, this however is not full proof in the event of a faulty PSU that decides to fry things. This is where RAID 6 comes in handy for a quick recovery of the RAID 5 array on mission critical servers. RAID 6 entails more management of the array, and also I don?t run a mission critical server.

But a good suggestion in the right context, nonetheless

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Instead of going to the extent of buying duplicate cards and still not having an actual backup solution, how about watch for hot deals on high-capacity drives, then put a couple of them in a different PC on your network and schedule your server to back up across the network to those drives?

That wouldn't be very difficult or time-consuming, and it wouldn't require any manual attendance. It might generate a lot of network traffic, and you still have to worry about those darn asteriods, but hey

As RebateMonger implies, there's also a risk when the data is still on the network, because worms and viruses could still get at them, so take that into account too.

Virus and worms etc I had thought of, and thanks for mentioning it. This is one of the massive benefits of backups when having had the system backed up prior to the infection. It?s not that I am narrow minded, but I feel confident that i would never get such infection on my network. So me personally I wouldn't pay much attention to this point in this scenario.

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: RichUK
Does anyone here treat RAID 5 as a suitable substitute for a backup solution?

No.

My data and my clients' data are important. Anything important should be backed up. Folks frequently show up on these Forums asking how to recover their RAID arrays.

The only sure backup is one that's NOT attached to the network and is, preferably, offsite. The cheap-and-lazy-person's way to backup 30GB of data is to build two SATA/USB/Firewire drives in trays or housings, make periodic automatic backups to the backup drive, and swap the drives periodically.

I can?t disagree with what you?ve said, as the many enterprise networks I have helped develop and have also worked on, have had a proper infrastructure in place.

I.E RAID ? for optimum uptime (every contract I?ve worked on has used RAID 5). A backup solution ? For disaster recovery. Obviously this involves a good backup cycle, for example: including two weeks worth differential backups along with a weekly full backup.


I think after some thought, trying to maintain a servers uptime is perhaps going to be more involved if something was to go wrong in the future, which is usually inevitable. So I have put more thought into the orginal suggestion from ?bob4432?, in using an external storage device that hangs off a fire wire port.

This will be more manageable in the long run if and when something goes wrong, and need to perform an actual backup. This will also relieve me of trying to maintain an ooptimal performing array.

I am usually quite optimistic, hence why I was trying to convince myself that RAID 5 would suffice.

Thanks for your input guys, much appreciated.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Atheus
If you do RAID 1, can you access each drive as a single drive? If the card dies can you still access the data?

Originally posted by: Navid
How is RAID going to help you, as a real backup solution would, if you delete a file by mistake and want it back?

Because he said the array holds images of his working volume, not the working volume itself.

And what if he accidentally deletes one of those images??

From a dedicated backup volume? why would he do that? that's like saying 'what if he accidentally thew his tapes in the fire'...

I didn't claim RAID is as good as tapes, but we're only talking about a home system, so IMO it's fine.

If you RAID 1, both drives are 1 logical drive.

Duh.

You can't access them separately.

But why not? In RAID 1 the drives are just clones of each other, and both contain the entirety of the data.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Atheus
If you do RAID 1, can you access each drive as a single drive? If the card dies can you still access the data?

Originally posted by: Navid
How is RAID going to help you, as a real backup solution would, if you delete a file by mistake and want it back?

Because he said the array holds images of his working volume, not the working volume itself.

And what if he accidentally deletes one of those images??

From a dedicated backup volume? why would he do that? that's like saying 'what if he accidentally thew his tapes in the fire'...

I didn't claim RAID is as good as tapes, but we're only talking about a home system, so IMO it's fine.

If you RAID 1, both drives are 1 logical drive.

Duh.

You can't access them separately.

But why not? In RAID 1 the drives are just clones of each other, and both contain the entirety of the data.

How can you "duh" to one, and then ask how you can access data of one drive versus the other in a RAID 1 array? If you needed to do this for some reason, you could take down one drive, and that would let you access the other, but they would re-sync when the other drive was brought back online.

If you have two 250gb hard drives, in RAID 1, you have a 250gb disk to work with.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Atheus
If you do RAID 1, can you access each drive as a single drive? If the card dies can you still access the data?

Originally posted by: Navid
How is RAID going to help you, as a real backup solution would, if you delete a file by mistake and want it back?

Because he said the array holds images of his working volume, not the working volume itself.

And what if he accidentally deletes one of those images??

From a dedicated backup volume? why would he do that? that's like saying 'what if he accidentally thew his tapes in the fire'...

I didn't claim RAID is as good as tapes, but we're only talking about a home system, so IMO it's fine.

If you RAID 1, both drives are 1 logical drive.

Duh.

You can't access them separately.

But why not? In RAID 1 the drives are just clones of each other, and both contain the entirety of the data.

How can you "duh" to one, and then ask how you can access data of one drive versus the other in a RAID 1 array? If you needed to do this for some reason, you could take down one drive, and that would let you access the other, but they would re-sync when the other drive was brought back online.

If you have two 250gb hard drives, in RAID 1, you have a 250gb disk to work with.

I think what we have here is a misunderstanding...

I am referring to the situation where the controller card dies and you are unable to rebuild the array, as mentioned earlier in this thread as a drawback of RAID. I was thinking of the advantages of RAID 1 in this case over RAID 5 - would you not be able to easily read a single drive without the RAID controller, as there is no striping/parity/etc, and thereby recover your data? I thought you were telling me no you could not do this... is that what you're saying?