OT: Maxtor drive goes under

From: David Holland <dholland_at_woh.rr.com>
Date: Thu Jan 16 18:24:00 2003

(Sorry to be x86 centric here - But)

A word of warning to those who see the integrated promise controllers
built into the a fairly current motherboard, and think "Hey, quick/cheap
way to do RAID"

I know a fellow who was using his on-board Promise controller, and was
with out his computer, and without access to his data, for over a week,
when his MB went south, fortunately it was under warranty, but it (IMHO)
far too long for the company to replace it.

With software mirroring, it may cost you performance, but at least you
can plug your drives into "any old" MB, and start recovery.

As for backup systems, I'd be more interested in reasonable cost
removable storage hardware. Somewhere along the line, my system grew to
280GB, I'm trying to figure two things:

1) Why the <expletive> my drives are so full?
2) How the <expletive> am I going to back this up? :-)

IMHO/YMMV/Std Disclaimers/Void where prohibited by law.

David



On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 14:26, Kent Borg wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:20:34AM -0800, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> > Unless someone has a suggestion for something that's very easy to
> > use and either dumps backup data to a server or a ZIP disk or
> > something removeable.
>
> I've been thinking about backups of late.
>
> In my recent story the disk that died didn't bring any data with it
> because of being mirrored in a raid 1 array. Cool, but I don't want
> to get smug.
>
> Backups are, in part, for protecting against hardware failure, and
> raid 1 protects well against a disk dying, but not against the whole
> box being lost in flood, fire, theft, lightening, etc. That is not
> complete hardware protection but it is significant.
>
> But that's not *all* backups are for: backups are also for "time
> travel", for example, to help one recover from an errant "rm -rf ~".
> Raid 1 clearly doesn't solve this problem, but does make a formerly
> insane approach possible: How about backing up the raid array with
> itself?
>
> Use a (normally not mounted) partition to store historical information
> about files. I haven't worked out the details of how to do this, but
> if done it would result in a system that would be safe from the most
> common sorts of hardware failures (a single disk dying) and software
> failures (specific files deleted, corrupted, edited inadvisably). The
> physical loss or destruction of the whole box or a low-level
> scribbling of the disk (i.g., wildly applied Linux dd command) would
> still be a risk, but those risks are far less than the risks of a
> single unprotected disk.
>
> For more robustness, if two physically separated computers can talk to
> each other at decent speeds, maybe they could be mutual backups. That
> would remove even more risks.
>
> Note that using a disk to back a disk (be it the same disk or a
> diffferent disk) is only sensible as disks get so big that they become
> very difficult to back up via removabe media and are even difficult to
> figure out how to fill up! (A 120 GB disk for ~$120? 120 GB is a LOT
> of space. My ~measly~ 60 GB disks are damn big.)
>
>
> Any know of a good online backup system for Linux that would work as I
> describe? A simple rsync isn't good enough, I want to be able to go
> back in time and browse for old files.
>
>
> -kb
Received on Thu Jan 16 2003 - 18:24:00 GMT