[ctviggen]

Is there anything wrong with using RAID 1 as a backup technique?  I have one 300 GB drive on which Windows 7 is installed and two 1.5 TB drives set up in a RAID 1 configuration (the same data is sent to both drives in parallel, meaning that each drive should be an exact copy of the other).

Realistically, this is what I was going to do anyway, which was use a 1.5TB drive for my music/DVD rips/home videos, and copy everything to the second 1.5TB drive.  So, RAID 1 allows me to do this without having to copy anything.  (I currently have all my data on a 300GB, almost full drive, which is in an external enclosure; I'll copy everything from this drive to the 1.5 TB RAID array once Win 7 finishes installing.)

Is there anything wrong with using RAID 1 as a backup technique?

[mgalusha]

One thing RAID 1 (or 5 for that matter) won't protect you from is human error, like accidentally deleting an entire branch of folders. Something that is a one way copy is a better option, at least for paranoid folks like me.

I use a 1.5TB RAID 5 setup for the music and have it copied to 2TB usb drive every two hours. It only copies the new and changed files and I don't have it set to remove files from the copy automatically, just in case I fat finger a delete..

[scp2]

I thought the same thing about Raid when I bought my NAS...only to discover Raid isn't really a back up.

I did similiar to Mike only doing it once a day..then I read on another forum of some one who got a virus and it infected his Raid files and when the back up ran it infected the files on his external drive.

The real back up junkies have two externals and keep one off site and switch them back and forth every now and then..I guess protecting from fire etc.


I just diconnect my external drive and only hook it up and do a backup after I have added a fair amount of cd's.

I am no computor whiz...but this is what I have learned after going discless.

[mizzuno]

I thought the same thing about Raid when I bought my NAS...only to discover Raid isn't really a back up.

That is definitely correct, RAID-1 is used to spread the risk of disk failure, as are all forms of RAID. For instance if you write a corrupt block on one drive, with RAID-1 (or any RAID technology for matter) that same error is mirrored on the other drive(s). So basically its insurance against drive failure. To safe store your data you should use tape media (as arcane as that sounds, its the most reliable). Using a tool like Acronis True Image, can give you Point in time recovery, which can mitigate the issues associated with viruses corrupting data. Ultimately you have to store the backed up data somewhere, if its on disks you have the same hardware failure risk (eg the data you are preserving). Optical media should only be used as a short term solution.

[lcrim]

Raid is not a backup solution.  It provides redundancy.  It is used to keep things running when a limited hardware failure occurs.  It does not provide data integrity.   
An up to date copy of the data you want to protect, such as music files, should be taken offsite for real security.  This can be as simple as weekly backups to a hard drive that is then locked in the trunk of your car.

[Bob in St. Louis]

I've got two external RAID enclosures each containing two drives.
(If memory serves) One has a couple 500GB drives and the other has dual 1.5TB.
One unit is for photos, the other is for tunes.

If I had it all to do over again, I'd buy two separate USB drives and keep one else ware.
I had a nasty scare not too long ago regarding the RAID software and thought everything was gone.

Bob

[Delta Wave]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

[skunark]

I use two external drives for my data and music, one of which is a snapshot style backup and the other is the data itself.  In addition to a local backup, I also use backblaze for an offsite backup which runs just like the snapshot style.   For $5/month, backblaze is very cost effective.    But the only way to foolproof protect against a virus and disk corruption is to keep the source.    IMO, tape backups will never be cost effective if I have the CDs stored in the place.   

[rajacat]

Instead of dealing with the  complications of RAID backup, I prefer the simplicity of dual USB external drives. Actually I've considered a third USB drive because you can never be too safe when dealing with your music collection. I use SyncToy for backup. Works perfectly.                        

http://download.cnet.com/SyncToy/3000-2248_4-10629009.html

-Roy

[bpape]

I actually do both. I use RAID for day to day in case of a single drive failure.  I also back up to an external drive any time I add music to my collection.  Chances of losing anything are pretty remote.

Bryan

[jermmd]

If you have an old PC at home, try Unraid. It's free for up to three hard drives, it's simple and pretty idiot proof (I use it!). It protects your data, it's expandable over time, it shows up on your network and you can keep it in your closet/attic/garage/wherever.

[ctviggen]

Thanks for all the replies.  I've been mired in rebuilding the same machine over and over again, due to motherboard failures. 

Joe, this computer will become my unraid machine, as it can support 6 drives.  However, for now, I need it to be a general computer until I get my family room finally finished and buy another small computer (laptop?  Zino?) for general usage and relegate this machine to unraid. 

If RAID 1 is not a good backup technique, what storage technique can I use as a backup when I have 3-6TB of data?  Right now, I only have 300gb of data, but I stopped ripping DVDs and Blurays because I filled my 300gb drive.  I do have a 300gb external drive at work, which serves my music there and is a copy of all my data.  But it's only 300gb.  A ripped Bluray is 20+gb itself, so I can easily see blowing through 2TB of data.  When I make this computer an unraid server, I'll have (using three drives) 4.5TB.  I can't really back that up to a single external drive.   What supports that amount of data?

Thanks. 

[ctviggen]

It seem as if tape drives aren't a good option.  If I have 4.5TB of data, I can buy 4.5TB for around $300 in hard drives.  A tape drive that supports 320GB tapes is around $700:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=40000046&Description=tape%20drive%20sata&name=Backup%20Drives

Each tape is $30 approximately, so that would mean around 9 tapes or $270 in tapes.  That's about $1,000 just for a single backup.  Yikes!  For $600, I could buy two separate sets of 4.5 TB in hard drives and just back up to these (though I might also have to buy some external enclosures, which are around $30/each). 

As for viruses, I'm not sure how to protect against these other than to use a good virus program.

[viggen]

I don't think there's anything wrong with using raid 1 for archiving data.

In fact, I think it's a very good solution.  I've had many back up external drives die on me, and I ended up losing all my archived data.  Chances of me losing everything would have been much lower had I been using a raid 1 configured drives as chances of all the drives dying is much lower than just one.

Just don't use the raid drive as your main drive but only as your designated back up, and you should be fine.

[whanafi]

I agree.  The problem is not RAID, but how and where you implement it. 

An external device reduces the chances of losing everything due to a power supply spike/motherboard failure/PC being stolen.  External and multiple copies using whatever technology you like and can afford are the way to go.

With disk prices the way they are now, I could see keeping a fleet of Seagate FreeAgent Go drives and rotating them as backup devices.  I already keep one in my briefcase for travel, and one in the HT rack so I don't have to stream video - already streaming music.

You could buy 10 640gb FreeAgents for the price of a NAS.