Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 2015-05-28 20:45, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Actually, IMO, an rsync job is safer than raid, it covers more failure modes, but not as fast.
It depends on how you define "safe". In my book, the longer a system runs without two identical copies, the less safe it is. There is no way an rsync copy will ever catch up with a RAID1 mirror.
A RAID system does not protect you against data corruption or filesystem corruption or human error. It only protects against HD hardware failure. If you delete a file by mistake, you may still have a copy in the rsync copy - which may have a photo taken each hour, so you can have several versions of the same file. Depends on how much space you dedicate to it. On a RAID, both copies are lost instantly.
We were talking about what "safe" is. If you want to safeguard your data against your own mistakes, RAID is certainly not the right tool. A pair of big gardening gloves might be better :-)
If my data is so important to need a raid, I absolutely must also have an rsync backup. If I can't have both, then it will only be the rsync copy.
Your rsync copy still isn't as good as your RAID "copy". The rsync copy is always older, so you will always lose data when you have to use it. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.7°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org