With SSD storage, what what your thoughts on redundant storage devices (e.g RAID1), is it a waste, a nice to have or a must?

what are your experiences and thoughts on this ?

Appreciate your opinion, as I will probably move from HDD to SSD.

  • Chup@feddit.de
    121·
    1 year ago

    I’m quite disappointed by most comments so far talking about RAID and data loss. That is not what RAID is for at all.

    RAID is for uptime/availability. When a drive fails, the system will keep running and working. For companies, that would lose thousands of currency per hour with a downtime, this is super important that the system keeps running. At home, it’s convenience that you can order a new drive and replace without hours of setting up and copying before you can watch the next episode again.

    Backups are against data loss. If a single drive fails, a RAID fails or you get some encryption malware or an employee destroys stuff on purpose, then everything is destroyed. It doesn’t matter if it was a single, any RAID, HDD or SSD. You order a new drive, make a new volume and restore the data from your backup.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      6·
      1 year ago

      Well, more specifically it is protecting against a specific form of data loss, which is hardware failure. A good practice if you’re able is to have RAID and an offsite/cloud backup solution.

      But if you don’t, don’t feel terrible. When the OVH datacentre had a fire, I lost my server there. But so did a lot of businesses. You’d be amazed at how many had no backup and were demanding that OVH somehow pry their smouldering drives from what remained of the datacentre wing and salvage all the data.

      If you care about your data, you want a backup that is off-site. Cloud backup is quite inexpensive these days.

    • thejoker8814@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      I have to agree, RAID has only one purpose - keep your data/ storage operating during a disk failure. Does not matter which RAID level or SW. Thank god you mentioned it before.

      There can be benefits in addition depending on RAID level and layout, for example read & write speed or more IOP/s than an individual disk (either SSD or HDD). However, the main purpose is still to eliminate a single disk as a single point of failure!

      Back to topic - if you have a strong requirement to run your services which (rely) on the SSD storage, even if a disk fails - then SSD Raid yes.

      For example.: I have s server running productive instances of Seafile, Gitea, and some minor services. I use them for business. Therefore those services have to be available, even if one disk fails. I cannot wait to restore a backup, wait for a a replacement disk and tell a client, Hey, sorry my server disk failed” (unprofessional)

      For protection against data loss - backups: one local on another NAS, one in the cloud. 👌🏼

    • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
      1·
      1 year ago

      I also thought that way in the beginning, but then disaster recovery is too inconvenient and will take weeks to set everything to your standards, while with raid you just replace the drive and go

      Not to mention that “temporary” directory that was supposed to last one week and wasn’t included in the backup script, but then happened to last several months holding important files