From: Farley Flud Subject: Re: My First HDD Failure (I Think) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 34 Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.usenetexpress.com!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:44:17 +0000 Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:44:17 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2017 Organization: UsenetExpress - www.usenetexpress.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetexpress.com Bytes: 2273 On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:15:05 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote: > > I understood that what he offered took care of speed and volume nicely, > but not the safety. I could not make sure each backup is placed on a new > media or each disk there contains more than one backup. If a disk, any > disk, is accessed all the time, it will crash one day. > Wrong. The entire concept of RAID is to ensure data integrity (i.e. safety) through redundancy. In vallor's example, 8 drives would have to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY for data to be lost, and the probability of that occurrence would be EXTREMELY small. You should adopt a RAID system with maybe 3-5 drives. This system would be on-line continuously and you could backup your data in a continuous fashion. If desired, you could then backup to a more permanent storage at regular intervals. RAID is used everywhere when data integrity is essential. I don't use it because my data is more of the "library" model where weekly or even monthly backups are acceptable. -- Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.