Originally Posted by Krillin
Being an IT Professional over 10 years, I can honestly say RAID is NOT a good way to go for reliable backups. Why? If the 2nd drive is starting to fail, you NEVER know until the main one fails. I have seen clients loose to this scenario too many times. I do not care what kind of software you use to monitor. There isn't a good piece of software which monitors RAID. Your best bet for backup protection is BackupExec with a tape drive big enough to backup your data to take into consideration of future growth. There is more to this than meets the eye. It can be costly. But it is an investment that prevents this type of embarrassment.
I knew something was up when I went to go look at the status of CSSDM Crashing Insecure Server's kticket and the website was not found. I have not tried it lately but will try again and see if my bug report is missing.
But above is my two cents and my professional offerings to avoid this type of embarrassment in the near future and a heads up that RAID just doesn't work until it is too late.
RAID in this case is not being used as the primary source of backups. It's being used so that one drive can fail, and it can be replaced without having to reconfigure everything.
So, lets say the server has two drives in RAID 1, and one fails.
Worst case: The other drive fails before the first can be replaced, and everything needs to be restored from backups.
Best case: The failed drive is replaced, and the system automatically rebuilds the array with no data corruption.
Let's say you have one drive, and it fails. Now you are faced with restoring everything from backups.
Given that the worst case with raid is no worse then the worst case without raid, I don't see any reason why it would be a bad thing.
RAID is not backups. It won't protect you from rm -rf / , but it can save you a ton of work.