On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:01 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > > On 11/18/2015 11:55 AM, Warren Young wrote: >> It’s rather annoying to buy a NAS, then later realize you need to >> buy*another* NAS as a mirror in case the first one roaches itself. Isn’t >> that what redundant storage is supposed to avoid? > > > no, RAID is purely availability when faced with single or double drive > failure, nothing else. classic raid is most certainly NOT about data > integrity, as the raid stripes aren't checksummed, they assume hardware data > integrity.
I knew I’d get some kind of lecture like that. Look, I know RAID/ZFS is not a backup. My point is simply that if you need to keep a mirror of your file server just in case it roaches itself, what you have there is dual redundancy, not a backup. You need an offline backup *on top* of that, for the same reason that all hot mirrors are not backups. My point is that unreliable NAS/RAID systems *require* this dual redundancy, whereas a reliable system only needs normal backups, that being the sort where you rarely go back and pull more than a few files at a time. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
