Curt (12022-11-10): > Maybe it's a question of intent more than anything else. I thought RAID > was intended for a server scenario where if a disk fails, you're down > time is virtually null, whereas as a backup is intended to prevent data > loss.
Maybe just use common sense. RAID means your data is present on several drives. You can just deduce what it can help for: one drive fails → you can replace it immediately, no downtime one drive fails → the data is present elsewhere, no data loss several¹ drive fail → downtime and data loss² 1: depending on RAID level 2: or not if you have backups too > RAID isn't ideal for the latter because it doesn't ship the saved > data off-site from the original data (or maybe a RAID array is > conceivable over a network and a distance?). It is always a matter of compromise. You cannot duplicate your data off-site at the same rate as you duplicate it on a second local drive. That means your off-site data will survive an EMP, but you will lose minutes / hours / days of data prior to the EMP. OTOH, RAID will not survive an EMP, but it will prevent all data loss caused by isolated hardware failure. -- Nicolas George
